4 ms·

Exactly. So silly. Plus Apple Watches have always been only charged via conductive, so it’s likely phones could have gone that way too within a short space of

Exactly. So silly. Plus Apple Watches have always been only charged via conductive, so it’s likely phones could have gone that way too within a short space of time if the lack of a data cable was deemed acceptable.

jonwinstanley 4y ago
Actually, if they go wireless then they don’t need to have USB-C. Only devices charged by cable need to have USB-C.
- doikor 4y ago
  Even devices that charge with a cable do not need USB-C if they are too small to physically fit a USB-C port. Though at that point they wont fit a Lightning port either but instead some weird exposed charging pins or wireless charging.
morsch 4y ago
Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The fastest charging Android phones charge at >100 W, while wireless charging is currently at 10-15 W.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I routinely charge my iPhone on a wireless charger. When I'm in a hurry, I plug it in. I don't want that option taken away, wireless is nowhere near fast enough yet.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I’ve also found wireless charging to be inconsistent at best, especially with a case. Half the time I come back and I didn’t place my phone in exactly the right place. Maybe it’s the quality of my chargers, but until I can buy a random charger on Amazon and assume it to be as reliable as an equivalent cable, I don’t think we can give up the cables.(fwiw my current charger is name brand)
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    This is why the last couple of generations of iPhones have supported "magsafe" charging, so the magnets line things up every time. Amazon has plenty of "magsafe" chargers for iPhones. To be clear, wireless charging with "magsafe" is still slower than using a cable.
agloeregrets 4y ago
I would highly prefer the watch didn't charge that way; it takes FOREVER.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  That's not my experience. I'd check cables and ports and see if there's something you can adjust. My watch charges pretty quickly.

jonwinstanley 4y ago

Actually, if they go wireless then they don’t need to have USB-C. Only devices charged by cable need to have USB-C.

doikor 4y ago
Even devices that charge with a cable do not need USB-C if they are too small to physically fit a USB-C port. Though at that point they wont fit a Lightning port either but instead some weird exposed charging pins or wireless charging.

morsch 4y ago

Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The fastest charging Android phones charge at >100 W, while wireless charging is currently at 10-15 W.

rootusrootus 4y ago

I routinely charge my iPhone on a wireless charger. When I'm in a hurry, I plug it in. I don't want that option taken away, wireless is nowhere near fast enough yet.

mikkergp 4y ago
I’ve also found wireless charging to be inconsistent at best, especially with a case. Half the time I come back and I didn’t place my phone in exactly the right place. Maybe it’s the quality of my chargers, but until I can buy a random charger on Amazon and assume it to be as reliable as an equivalent cable, I don’t think we can give up the cables.(fwiw my current charger is name brand)
- pwinnski 4y ago
  This is why the last couple of generations of iPhones have supported "magsafe" charging, so the magnets line things up every time. Amazon has plenty of "magsafe" chargers for iPhones. To be clear, wireless charging with "magsafe" is still slower than using a cable.

agloeregrets 4y ago

I would highly prefer the watch didn't charge that way; it takes FOREVER.

ubermonkey 4y ago
That's not my experience. I'd check cables and ports and see if there's something you can adjust. My watch charges pretty quickly.