4 ms·

This is a great move for wireless charging as a whole, but I do have to question the fine-print here. Apple owns the MagSafe patents through 2030, which means t

This is a great move for wireless charging as a whole, but I do have to question the fine-print here. Apple owns the MagSafe patents through 2030, which means they could pull a "MFi standard" situation and charge manufacturers licensing costs just to use "standard" technology. I'm still hopeful that this comes with no strings attached, but once bitten makes me twice shy.

meragrin_ 4y ago
What patents? I've only seen design patents. Alphabet has a patent on using magnets for alignment: US7026789B2
post_break 4y ago
Reading the press release it appears the WCP is adopting the alignment via magnets as the standard. And Qi2 will remain the standard with no gotchas.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
scarface74 4y ago
Once you agree to make your patents part of a standard, the standard committee forces all patent holders to license their patents under FRAND.
- TylerE 4y ago
  the F stands for Fair, not Free.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I never said anything differently.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Yep. Historically though, Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams. Look at the entire MFi line, a 'standard' that was defined by high-margin Chinese junk that slapped Apple icons on their Bluetooth smart speaker. There wasn't a Cambrian explosion of innovative iPhone tools, but instead a sea of useless iDogs and plastic boomboxes. Apple's greed has clearly hurt their own ecosystem in the past. They've made it completely obvious that their goal is indiscriminate rent collection, and I'd appreciate if that attitude would remain isolated from the ideals of open computing as a whole.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    > Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams a) Apple's "standards" are not a proper standard by any definition. b) Their proprietary connectors e.g. Lightning, MagSafe have always been developed when they have believed there was a better user experience available. When there wasn't they have adopted the industry standard e.g. HDMI, USB-C, SD. c) Apple is a massive company that hinges on having a superior user experience to the competition. The idea that programs such as MFI would compromise this in order to create an insignificant revenue stream is illogical.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > Yep. Historically though, Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams. Look at the entire MFi line, a 'standard' That was never a licensed standard overseen by a standards body. Apple contributed to the H.264 standard, and is also a major contributor to the USB C standard, as well as the Thunderbolt standard. > They've made it completely obvious that their goal is indiscriminate rent collection, and I'd appreciate if that attitude would remain isolated from the ideals of open computing as a whole. You realize that’s how the entire industry works right? Cellular standards and most video and modern audio codecs are also licensed via a patent pool. There is no such thing as “open computing” where nothing is licensed from patent holders for anything that the vast majority of people would find usable.
    - 4y ago

meragrin_ 4y ago

What patents? I've only seen design patents. Alphabet has a patent on using magnets for alignment: US7026789B2

post_break 4y ago

Reading the press release it appears the WCP is adopting the alignment via magnets as the standard. And Qi2 will remain the standard with no gotchas.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

scarface74 4y ago

Once you agree to make your patents part of a standard, the standard committee forces all patent holders to license their patents under FRAND.

TylerE 4y ago
the F stands for Fair, not Free.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I never said anything differently.
smoldesu 4y ago
Yep. Historically though, Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams. Look at the entire MFi line, a 'standard' that was defined by high-margin Chinese junk that slapped Apple icons on their Bluetooth smart speaker. There wasn't a Cambrian explosion of innovative iPhone tools, but instead a sea of useless iDogs and plastic boomboxes. Apple's greed has clearly hurt their own ecosystem in the past. They've made it completely obvious that their goal is indiscriminate rent collection, and I'd appreciate if that attitude would remain isolated from the ideals of open computing as a whole.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams a) Apple's "standards" are not a proper standard by any definition. b) Their proprietary connectors e.g. Lightning, MagSafe have always been developed when they have believed there was a better user experience available. When there wasn't they have adopted the industry standard e.g. HDMI, USB-C, SD. c) Apple is a massive company that hinges on having a superior user experience to the competition. The idea that programs such as MFI would compromise this in order to create an insignificant revenue stream is illogical.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Yep. Historically though, Apple's standards have been less about creating convergent technology and more about reinforcing revenue streams. Look at the entire MFi line, a 'standard' That was never a licensed standard overseen by a standards body. Apple contributed to the H.264 standard, and is also a major contributor to the USB C standard, as well as the Thunderbolt standard. > They've made it completely obvious that their goal is indiscriminate rent collection, and I'd appreciate if that attitude would remain isolated from the ideals of open computing as a whole. You realize that’s how the entire industry works right? Cellular standards and most video and modern audio codecs are also licensed via a patent pool. There is no such thing as “open computing” where nothing is licensed from patent holders for anything that the vast majority of people would find usable.
  - 4y ago