5 ms·

It seems like apple is moving towards no port. Wireless charging + airpods are already here. It feels like USBC is a step backward. Having a fully sealed iphone

It seems like apple is moving towards no port. Wireless charging + airpods are already here. It feels like USBC is a step backward. Having a fully sealed iphone makes it much simpler and impervious to water.

yellow_postit 5y ago
That may be the spin but ultimately it’s about the peripheral licensing fees for Apple. The new MagSafe charging breaking comparability with existing items in practice due to making alignment harder is such a cynical moneygrab.
- djrogers 5y ago
  MagSafe doesn’t break compatibility with any qi chargers, and you have the difficulty of alignment issue backwards. MagSafe is easier to align - that doesn’t mean magnetless qi is made worse.
  - yellow_postit 5y ago
    Alignment is easier with MagSafe 2 MagSafe but aligning on Qi chargers is significantly harder. As one example automotive qi chargers, often in the center console, are regularly cited on automotive forums (in my experience) as not working with newer Apple products due to the more challenging alignment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mysterydip 5y ago
Fully sealed is probably also desirable by Apple to kill off the screen/battery replacement market.
- Reason077 5y ago
  Fully sealed? So no built-in microphone or speaker either?
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    Open headphone jacks and ports in a water resistant phone has been a solved problem from Sony for nearly a decade with the Xperia line.
    - Reason077 5y ago
      Likewise with Apple's water resistant iPhone line. iPhones have been IP67 rated since the iPhone 7, and IP68 since the iPhone XS.
city41 5y ago
Only having bluetooth as your audio option would be really disappointing.
galcerte 5y ago
Isn't wired charging faster than wireless? And isn't wireless charging less efficient, too? You're bound to lose some energy unless you really focus the radiation that's emitted.
- Reason077 5y ago
  Yes, yes, and yes.
- malobre 5y ago
  In his 2020 article about wireless charging inefficiency [0], Eric Ravenscraft wrote: > In my tests, I found that wireless charging used, on average, around 47% more power than a cable. [0]: https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-48afdde70ed9 https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-...
- sneak 5y ago
  It is but the magnetic alignment of Apple's version makes it a bit more efficient than usual wireless charging.
throwaway2077 5y ago
I'm sure water is a grave concern for middle+ class cosmopolitans that are the target market for 1000+ $ apple products
- d3nj4l 5y ago
  I don't get it, are middle class cosmopolitans hydrophobic?
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    In the US at least, they tend to live on the coasts, so maybe water intrusion is a bigger concern ;)
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      It wouldn't suprise me if water damage is more common on water resistant phones, since they don't drain once intrusion has taken place. Imagine a car without draining holes underneath.
amarshall 5y ago
I sure hope not. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to wired (slower charge time, bigger external battery packs, environmentally wasteful). Wireless headphones mean another thing to charge and of course connectivity issues that largely don’t exist with wired. Current iPhones are already rated for IP68 water resistance (6 meters depth for 30 minutes), and “fully sealed” would probably require removing the microphone and speakers, so I don’t really buy that argument.
silisili 5y ago
I read this often, but just can't see it. A lot of common use cases are all but impossible with no port. Think, charging on a red eye flight. Using a power bank for a long hike/camping. Quick charge in the morning when you forgot to charge the previous night, etc. Wireless just doesn't have the speed nor efficiency to compete. Even if speed is solved, I can't imagine how big a power bank would need to be to compete given the efficiency of wireless charging.
- nojito 5y ago
  Why can’t you use MagSafe while flying?
  - orev 5y ago
    For frequent travelers, every gram of weight and size counts. A little charging wire with USBC or Lightning is far lighter and smaller than a (relatively) giant MagSafe disc.
    - nojito 5y ago
      I have a magsafe charger in the same bag with my ipad mini and MBA. The idea that a magsafe charger is an end all for frequent travelers makes zero sense.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Isn't the efficiency of MagSafe quite high? Out of curiosity, is it harder to charge on early morning flights?
  - silisili 5y ago
    > Isn't the efficiency of MagSafe quite high? A quick search says 75%, which still seems quite wasteful. > Out of curiosity, is it harder to charge on early morning flights? Good point. I guess I just meant that everyone packed in tight using wireless chargers seemed more cumbersome than a simple lightning cable, but perhaps that view isn't reasonable. I've never tried it.
iszomer 5y ago
It could also be argued as "more secure" if traditional wired data exfiltration is hindered by the lack of ports.
- ickelbawd 5y ago
  Why do you believe that to be true? If there are no physical ports then all data transfer and access must happen wirelessly which means there must be means to connect, and extract data wirelessly. Sure, maybe there’s a temporary reprieve until the same level of exfiltration can be done wirelessly, but it will happen. And in this future wireless-only world your data will be exfiltrated without you ever knowing about it.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    > Why do you believe that to be true? I don't but I think it has the potential to be framed that way. If your phone was seized by law enforcement looking to extract your personal data, I imagine "plugging it in" will be the first thing they try.
Hamuko 5y ago
>It feels like USBC is a step backward. Not if you want to transfer a lot of data. Say for example, 4K ProRes video.
seventhtiger 5y ago
It'll be awful when Android phones copy Apple with the horrible Android Bluetooth peripheral market. I've had really bad experiences with Samsung buds and a Samsung phone.

yellow_postit 5y ago

That may be the spin but ultimately it’s about the peripheral licensing fees for Apple. The new MagSafe charging breaking comparability with existing items in practice due to making alignment harder is such a cynical moneygrab.

djrogers 5y ago
MagSafe doesn’t break compatibility with any qi chargers, and you have the difficulty of alignment issue backwards. MagSafe is easier to align - that doesn’t mean magnetless qi is made worse.
- yellow_postit 5y ago
  Alignment is easier with MagSafe 2 MagSafe but aligning on Qi chargers is significantly harder. As one example automotive qi chargers, often in the center console, are regularly cited on automotive forums (in my experience) as not working with newer Apple products due to the more challenging alignment.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mysterydip 5y ago

Fully sealed is probably also desirable by Apple to kill off the screen/battery replacement market.

Reason077 5y ago
Fully sealed? So no built-in microphone or speaker either?
- Larrikin 5y ago
  Open headphone jacks and ports in a water resistant phone has been a solved problem from Sony for nearly a decade with the Xperia line.
  - Reason077 5y ago
    Likewise with Apple's water resistant iPhone line. iPhones have been IP67 rated since the iPhone 7, and IP68 since the iPhone XS.

city41 5y ago

Only having bluetooth as your audio option would be really disappointing.

galcerte 5y ago

Isn't wired charging faster than wireless? And isn't wireless charging less efficient, too? You're bound to lose some energy unless you really focus the radiation that's emitted.

Reason077 5y ago
Yes, yes, and yes.
malobre 5y ago
In his 2020 article about wireless charging inefficiency [0], Eric Ravenscraft wrote: > In my tests, I found that wireless charging used, on average, around 47% more power than a cable. [0]: https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-48afdde70ed9 https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-...
sneak 5y ago
It is but the magnetic alignment of Apple's version makes it a bit more efficient than usual wireless charging.

throwaway2077 5y ago

I'm sure water is a grave concern for middle+ class cosmopolitans that are the target market for 1000+ $ apple products

d3nj4l 5y ago
I don't get it, are middle class cosmopolitans hydrophobic?
- Grustaf 5y ago
  In the US at least, they tend to live on the coasts, so maybe water intrusion is a bigger concern ;)
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    It wouldn't suprise me if water damage is more common on water resistant phones, since they don't drain once intrusion has taken place. Imagine a car without draining holes underneath.

amarshall 5y ago

I sure hope not. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to wired (slower charge time, bigger external battery packs, environmentally wasteful). Wireless headphones mean another thing to charge and of course connectivity issues that largely don’t exist with wired. Current iPhones are already rated for IP68 water resistance (6 meters depth for 30 minutes), and “fully sealed” would probably require removing the microphone and speakers, so I don’t really buy that argument.

silisili 5y ago

I read this often, but just can't see it. A lot of common use cases are all but impossible with no port. Think, charging on a red eye flight. Using a power bank for a long hike/camping. Quick charge in the morning when you forgot to charge the previous night, etc. Wireless just doesn't have the speed nor efficiency to compete. Even if speed is solved, I can't imagine how big a power bank would need to be to compete given the efficiency of wireless charging.

nojito 5y ago
Why can’t you use MagSafe while flying?
- orev 5y ago
  For frequent travelers, every gram of weight and size counts. A little charging wire with USBC or Lightning is far lighter and smaller than a (relatively) giant MagSafe disc.
  - nojito 5y ago
    I have a magsafe charger in the same bag with my ipad mini and MBA. The idea that a magsafe charger is an end all for frequent travelers makes zero sense.
Grustaf 5y ago
Isn't the efficiency of MagSafe quite high? Out of curiosity, is it harder to charge on early morning flights?
- silisili 5y ago
  > Isn't the efficiency of MagSafe quite high? A quick search says 75%, which still seems quite wasteful. > Out of curiosity, is it harder to charge on early morning flights? Good point. I guess I just meant that everyone packed in tight using wireless chargers seemed more cumbersome than a simple lightning cable, but perhaps that view isn't reasonable. I've never tried it.

iszomer 5y ago

It could also be argued as "more secure" if traditional wired data exfiltration is hindered by the lack of ports.

ickelbawd 5y ago
Why do you believe that to be true? If there are no physical ports then all data transfer and access must happen wirelessly which means there must be means to connect, and extract data wirelessly. Sure, maybe there’s a temporary reprieve until the same level of exfiltration can be done wirelessly, but it will happen. And in this future wireless-only world your data will be exfiltrated without you ever knowing about it.
- iszomer 5y ago
  > Why do you believe that to be true? I don't but I think it has the potential to be framed that way. If your phone was seized by law enforcement looking to extract your personal data, I imagine "plugging it in" will be the first thing they try.

Hamuko 5y ago

>It feels like USBC is a step backward. Not if you want to transfer a lot of data. Say for example, 4K ProRes video.

seventhtiger 5y ago

It'll be awful when Android phones copy Apple with the horrible Android Bluetooth peripheral market. I've had really bad experiences with Samsung buds and a Samsung phone.