Apple to Launch 'Completely Wireless' iPhone Without Lightning Connector in 2021. Possibly skipping USB-C adoption for iPhone completely

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

That's just false info.

AFAIK apple started the glued in battery BS.....

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

 because a person can read those cards without your knowledge from 10 feet away right through your pants.

I usually have it sandwiched between 2 expired card.....  And even if they somehow copy it the 15$ limit(above that the terminal asks for pin) will cripple their incentive to do it. To top it off i have sms notifications enabled so i would know about it as soon as they try anything.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

No, it really isn't. Efficiency will eventually catch up. It's just a matter of time. 

No amount of time is going to change the fact that wires are significantly more efficient at transferring power than EM inductance (unless your goal is to melt the phone in which case the reverse is true, see inductance furnace).

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Unless we move to exposed metal coils on the pad and phone with direct electrical transfer, no, we won't.

 

Even then EM inductance will not beat straight up copper for efficiency. 

4 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

You have an engineering degree? Do you know how wireless charging work?

 

 

 

I have attained several vocational qualifications in Electronic design and electrical principals for the engineering fields.    But you don't need any of those fancy qualifications to know that basic copper is significantly more efficient than a process that effectively converts the energy from electrical to EM field with free space losses then back to electrical energy again.

[RejZoR]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The claim about apples batteries being undersized for the job is not dishonest, Over the iphone 6 range two had undersized batteries that faded faster and required a software update to throttle the phone.  I don't care if people think that is fair or not, the fact is they did not tell anyone they did it and they damn well knew when they designed it that the battery size would result in a shorter life for the expected use.   Also no one is giving other manufacturers a free pass on using batteries that are too small for the job, they get just as much shit.     So no, there is no dishonesty there and the issues people are talking about are real and intentional on apples part.

 

EDIT: for reference the 6 had a larger batter than the 6s and the 6plus had a larger battery than 6s plus.  Even though the s variants were marginal bigger.

https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=6378&idPhone2=7243&idPhone3=6665

People need to drop the mAh mentality nonsense (just like with resolutions on all these stupid tiny displays). My XR doesn't even have 3000mAh yet it lasts longer than any Android with 3000mAh battery. And after a year of use, it's still at 100% health. I only charge it to 80% and that hasn't ever been an inconvenience for me. I expect it to last without any change for so long I'll probably flip the phone before it gets degraded for it to become an issue.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

People need to drop the mAh mentality nonsense (just like with resolutions on all these stupid tiny displays). My XR doesn't even have 3000mAh yet it lasts longer than any Android with 3000mAh battery. And after a year of use, it's still at 100% health. I only charge it to 80% and that hasn't ever been an inconvenience for me. I expect it to last without any change for so long I'll probably flip the phone before it gets degraded for it to become an issue.

My s5 has a 2800 mAh battery and it easily lasts for a full day with plenty of charge to spare, even if i watch videos from my internal SD card(almost all of them is  fhd or 720p videos).

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

People need to drop the mAh mentality nonsense (just like with resolutions on all these stupid tiny displays). My XR doesn't even have 3000mAh yet it lasts longer than any Android with 3000mAh battery. And after a year of use, it's still at 100% health. I only charge it to 80% and that hasn't ever been an inconvenience for me. I expect it to last without any change for so long I'll probably flip the phone before it gets degraded for it to become an issue.

MaH isn’t nonsense, but it’s also not the hard and fast number as people treat it as.  The Mah capacity of a lithium battery reduces over time, and it can reduce more or less quickly depending on how the battery is treated.

I suspect the reason your battery has lasted so well is because you only charge it to 80%.  Not discharging it all the way also helps I understand.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

MaH isn’t nonsense, but it’s also not the hard and fast number as people treat it as.  The Mah capacity of a lithium battery reduces over time, and it can reduce more or less quickly depending on how the battery is treated.

I suspect the reason your battery has lasted so well is because you only charge it to 80%.  Not discharging it all the way also helps I understand.  

It is partly also to do with the quality of the battery. As batteries age the insulator begins to break down forming little bridges. As the number of these bridges increase the capacity of the battery does not reduce by a huge amount, instead its internal resistance drops so it is effectively self draining. The more capacity we demand in battery design, the thinner and more compressed these materials become requiring them to be of higher quality. Some designs of phone cram a lot of pcb inside leaving less room for a battery so manufacturers will have to reduce the size of the cell to make it fit, but in part due to marketing have to keep the capacity up so may compromise a bit more than the engineers would like. Smaller and thinner can in some cases lead to a shorter life, and we haven’t even got into the additional issues of heat. So it is wrong to say IOS vs Android in the context used. There are plenty of excellent Android designs that do not compromise on battery over form

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

It is partly also to do with the quality of the battery. As batteries age the insulator begins to break down forming little bridges. As the number of these bridges increase the capacity of the battery does not reduce by a huge amount, instead its internal resistance drops so it is effectively self draining. The more capacity we demand in battery design, the thinner and more compressed these materials become requiring them to be of higher quality. Some designs of phone cram a lot of pcb inside leaving less room for a battery so manufacturers will have to reduce the size of the cell to make it fit, but in part due to marketing have to keep the capacity up so may compromise a bit more than the engineers would like. Smaller and thinner can in some cases lead to a shorter life, and we haven’t even got into the additional issues of heat. So it is wrong to say IOS vs Android in the context used. There are plenty of excellent Android designs that do not compromise on battery over form

Possible disconnect on my end regarding battery quality.  I deal with battery chemistries other than just LiPo, which is basically the only kind of lithium battery put into phones.  When you say “high quality” my mind just discards LiPo as it’s fairly low quality as lithium battery chemistries go.

You mean high quality LiPo though, yes?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Possible disconnect on my end regarding battery quality.  I deal with battery chemistries other than just LiPo, which is basically the only kind of lithium battery put into phones.  When you say “high quality” my mind just discards LiPo as it’s fairly low quality as lithium battery chemistries go.

You mean high quality LiPo though, yes?

Yes, it is not so much the chemistry but the quality of the electrodes and the separator. I am sure you know just how thin these are, and that the separator in particular is very prone to manufacturing defects. 

[Drak3]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

My XR doesn't even have 3000mAh yet it lasts longer than any Android with 3000mAh battery.

Either you don't use your XR as anything more than a basic phone, or you have no idea how long Android phones last.

Anything more than letting the phones idle, and they last roughly the same time as phones like the Galaxy S8, and the XR's rated capacity is 2942, not far off from the S8's 3000.

[RejZoR]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Either you don't use your XR as anything more than a basic phone, or you have no idea how long Android phones last.

Anything more than letting the phones idle, and they last roughly the same time as phones like the Galaxy S8, and the XR's rated capacity is 2942, not far off from the S8's 3000.

Except I had Android with 3000mAh battery before it and it was not as pleasant experience compared to XR with even slightly smaller battery.

[Drak3]

Just now, RejZoR said:

Except I had Android with 3000mAh battery before it and it was not as pleasant experience compared to XR with even slightly smaller battery.

I have two S8s. Both of them see the same battery life as my XR under any usage, a day and a half to two with light usage and about 3/4 a day under heavy usage. Just left to idle, both my S8s outlast the XR by over 100%, a full week vs 3 days at best.

 

My Note 9 and 11 Pro Max also see similar battery life with usage, 2.5 under light, a full day under heavy usage.

 

 

That's fairly typical now. iPhones have never offered exceptional battery life.

[Bombastinator]

26 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Yes, it is not so much the chemistry but the quality of the electrodes and the separator. I am sure you know just how thin these are, and that the separator in particular is very prone to manufacturing defects. 

Actually my knowledge of LiPo specifically is a bit short.  I use and learn mostly power tool batteries which have an entirely different layout.  LiPo is unique in lithium chemistries in that it can be made into almost any shape.  I’m not entirely sure why.  I know more about the rolled sheet batteries.  There is a big issue with electrodes and separators there too though.

 

10 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

you see that shit kids?

that shit is the future

I kinda hope not.  The mophie magnet system works better than suction cups and it still has too many problems.  The big issue though imho is still the data.  

[descendency]

11 hours ago, Kisai said:

However since the iPhone's still aren't being connected with USB 3.0 or 3.1 it's becoming painfully slow to backup a 256GB device to a PC's SSD drives when the bottleneck is the pokey 480Mbit (60MB/sec) connection.

I'm not familiar with the way iPhones backup, but do they not do deltas? 

 

This seems like such a niche problem and WiFi gen-5 (AC) is faster and more stable, assuming you don't have your access point in a microwave. 

[Sauron]

15 hours ago, dizmo said:

In terms of energy consumption, sure. Right now, however it'll only get better. One has to think about how much that weighs against not including tons of cables and power bricks.

You still need a charging pad and a cable from that to the outlet. If anything you need more stuff unless the charging pad also acts as a power supply.

 

It doesn't matter how much better it gets, it will never be as efficient as a direct cable due to physics. Also I see no reason to remove the port, it's just a pointless hassle.

[mr moose]

On 12/8/2019 at 8:58 PM, RejZoR said:

People need to drop the mAh mentality nonsense (just like with resolutions on all these stupid tiny displays). My XR doesn't even have 3000mAh yet it lasts longer than any Android with 3000mAh battery. And after a year of use, it's still at 100% health. I only charge it to 80% and that hasn't ever been an inconvenience for me. I expect it to last without any change for so long I'll probably flip the phone before it gets degraded for it to become an issue.

People need to learn what these ratings mean and when they apply before making comments.  The fact is the two standard versions of the phones did not fade yet the two s models did and the only difference was a smaller capacity battery.  Even if you are going to argue that apple used a cheaper battery in the s models to explain the difference instead of the capacity rating, then you are still arguing that apple cheaped out on the design and put in an under performing battery for the task.  Pleas don't try to argue that the engineers did not know this would happen,  as someone with qualifications in electronic design it's first year stuff calculating power draw and ensuring your supply can handle the load. 

[ARikozuM]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

No amount of time is going to change the fact that wires are significantly more efficient at transferring power than EM inductance (unless your goal is to melt the phone in which case the reverse is true, see inductance furnace).

 

Even then EM inductance will not beat straight up copper for efficiency. 

Again, I don't think we should not move to the wireless charging for the few watts of wasted energy. Some of us would rather waste a bit and have the convenience of charging anywhere a pad is available, i.e. home, car, work, airports, etc. 

 

"It's less efficient, let's not do it" is not the right attitude when it comes to anything. Things will get better over time. If Disney and Apple can make their wireless techs better, I will gladly back them. If efficiency can go up a few percent, let's do it. If range can be increased, let's do it. If heat is a concern, let's figure it out. We're talking about low wattage devices, they aren't going to be a danger for the majority. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Again, I don't think we should not move to the wireless charging for the few watts of wasted energy. Some of us would rather waste a bit and have the convenience of charging anywhere a pad is available, i.e. home, car, work, airports, etc. 

 

"It's less efficient, let's not do it" is not the right attitude when it comes to anything. Things will get better over time. If Disney and Apple can make their wireless techs better, I will gladly back them. If efficiency can go up a few percent, let's do it. If range can be increased, let's do it. If heat is a concern, let's figure it out. We're talking about low wattage devices, they aren't going to be a danger for the majority. 

Your argument wasn't about keeping wireless,  you literally claimed it was/would be just as efficient as wired. 

17 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

No, it really isn't. Efficiency will eventually catch up. It's just a matter of time. 

 

That is factually wrong.  Wireless will never be as efficient as wired, as free space loss is basically an inverse sqr ratio.  So not just a few watts different, but more like a factor of 4 when you get to current requirements that are in the 2 amp range.

[ARikozuM]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your argument wasn't about keeping wireless,  you literally claimed it was/would be just as efficient as wired. 

 

That is factually wrong.  Wireless will never be as efficient as wired, as free space loss is basically an inverse sqr ratio.  So not just a few watts different, but more like a factor of 4 when you get to current requirements that are in the 2 amp range.

There is space for more efficiency. Either charging multiple devices, charging at a distance, etc. 

 

I understand it will never be as efficient as a wire. I also understand that there is room for more efficient use of wireless charging as I've said before with Disney and Apple.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There is space for more efficiency. Either charging multiple devices, charging at a distance, etc. 

 

I understand it will never be as efficient as a wire. I also understand that there is room for more efficient use of wireless charging as I've said before with Disney and Apple.

They might be able to refine the process a little, but the difference between the two is still huge and will always be huge.  it is just one of the physical properties of nature that won't change.

[Kisai]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your argument wasn't about keeping wireless,  you literally claimed it was/would be just as efficient as wired. 

 

That is factually wrong.  Wireless will never be as efficient as wired, as free space loss is basically an inverse sqr ratio.  So not just a few watts different, but more like a factor of 4 when you get to current requirements that are in the 2 amp range.

 

No amount of wireless will ever be more efficient than wired. It's like trying to explain why a perpetual motion machine can not exist. There will always be losses to air. With motion that's friction, with wireless that's the air itself.

 

Personally, I think wireless charging is a dead-end, You waste 40% of the input energy and the phone itself takes twice as long. So the logical thing is to put two wireless chargers in the phone to solve the speed, but now you still waste 40% of the energy.

 

But the wireless charger itself is still wired to the wall, so all you've done is complicated things.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There is space for more efficiency. Either charging multiple devices, charging at a distance, etc. 

 

I understand it will never be as efficient as a wire. I also understand that there is room for more efficient use of wireless charging as I've said before with Disney and Apple.

The difference in efficiency heavily depends on distance, as Mr Moose explained. It also depends on voltage and many other things. We simply cannot have it all. If we want a strong, waterproof case then that will have a big effect on efficiency. AC transformers in your power brick also use induction but in those cases the wires are almost touching, plus the primary voltage is higher etc. Now, if we can put what are basically capacitors (certain new solid state batteries) inside instead of the current tech then we will still have a similar efficiency but we can dump the  power into the device far faster so whether we will consider the drop in efficiency a problem has yet to be seen.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

No amount of wireless will ever be more efficient than wired. It's like trying to explain why a perpetual motion machine can not exist. There will always be losses to air. With motion that's friction, with wireless that's the air itself.

 

Personally, I think wireless charging is a dead-end, You waste 40% of the input energy and the phone itself takes twice as long. So the logical thing is to put two wireless chargers in the phone to solve the speed, but now you still waste 40% of the energy.

 

But the wireless charger itself is still wired to the wall, so all you've done is complicated things.

the only place wireless charging makes any sense to me is in restaurants etc where you can just put your phone down and top it up a bit while you eat.

[Unixsystem]

14 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It could be if it was effectively a wireless battery bank.  Of course it would have to be charged by another pad of that nature... never mind the wall outlet, it will just be pads all the way down

Finally we'll have a compelling reason to push neighborhood-scale thorium reactors - just to account for the wireless efficiency losses. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

The difference in efficiency heavily depends on distance, as Mr Moose explained. It also depends on voltage and many other things. We simply cannot have it all. If we want a strong, waterproof case then that will have a big effect on efficiency. AC transformers in your power brick also use induction but in those cases the wires are almost touching, plus the primary voltage is higher etc. Now, if we can put what are basically capacitors (certain new solid state batteries) inside instead of the current tech then we will still have a similar efficiency but we can dump the  power into the device far faster so whether we will consider the drop in efficiency a problem has yet to be seen.

And the wires in transformers are linked with a solid chunk of iron to direct the Field around the second winding.  And even those are significantly less efficient than switch mode supplies. (and yes I realize SM supplies use transformers too, just in a different way).