3 ms·
> otherwise Apple will drop the port and move to wireless charging Since the aim is to reduce e-waste, I suppose going all-in with wireless charging wouldn't b
by TadasPaplauskas 5y ago
> otherwise Apple will drop the port and move to wireless charging
Since the aim is to reduce e-waste, I suppose going all-in with wireless charging wouldn't be a problem (or even preferable) in the eyes of the law.
- walterbell 5y agoA thin cable is much less waste than a wireless charger, which has a larger surface area and is still an evolving standard, e.g. magnetic docking, so it will be years of generational upgrades. Cables exist today and work much faster. Should human time spent waiting for phone chargers be a metric for central planning regulation? e.g. what does a 100% speed increase in rapid charging mean for the economy, vs. travelers waiting at an airport or cafe, or running their car to charge their phone? The laws of physics still apply to wired audio, networking and electricity, no matter how many billions are spent on glitzy ads for wireless.
- q-rews 5y agoNot to mention the inefficiency.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zibzab 5y agowireless charging is less efficient and may even affect battery longevity.
- krzyk 5y ago> Since the aim is to reduce e-waste, I suppose going all-in with wireless charging wouldn't be a problem (or even preferable) in the eyes of the law. wireless charging uses more energy than cable one, so it is not that eco friendly