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

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

In a similar line of thinking. Some kind of bulk charging system may make technical sense (eg EMT's, Police, Fire, Ambulance) where seconds save lives. So they can just drop their entire kit on top of the charger and pick it up without having to carefully disconnect every power cord.

 

The the issue remains, it's inefficient, and the use cases are more edge cases than anything. For example, have you been to the mall?

 

 

This is a phone charging kiosk.

 

So instead of having a dozen different connectors, you just make a bunch of wireless charging pads. This also removes the potential for "hacking" via USB chargers.

 

[The Sloth]

48 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

 

 

"It's less efficient, let's not do it" is not the right attitude when it comes to anything. 

I think we should give the users a choice, getting a quick 30% before going somewhere is always nice. 

 

 

Quote

"It's less efficient, let's not do it"

Most people will choose the more efferent/ faster alternative, especially in out fast moving world. I remember being impressed  by my s3 being able to wirelessly charge. 

[Unixsystem]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

 

 

 

This is a phone charging kiosk.

I saw one of these at my local target a few days ago, and it's existence baffles me. 

 

Unless you take hour-plus long shopping trips and your phone is just nearly dead and you are willing to leave it behind the entire time and it supports wireless charging, it is a complete waste of space. I really want to see what the actual total number of uses for those kiosks is after a few months. A dozen? 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

I think we should give the users a choice, getting a quick 30% before going somewhere is always nice. 

 

 

Most people will choose the more efferent/ faster alternative, especially in out fast moving world. I remember being impressed  by my s3 being able to wirelessly charge. 

I just hope we don’t go down the wireless route out of laziness. We need to be improving efficiency and not reducing it. Our reliance on electricity is increasing year on year, we need to realise that has a huge environmental effect. Many may think the loss is small, but it is cumulative. The sheer number of devices worldwide that could end up wireless we are looking at a very substantial loss in energy. Consider further that many electric car companies are also looking at induction charging for cars, busses, lorries etc. Here in the UK just up the road from me there is already a place that have induction charged busses so that is here already. Here is an old article on them, they are now in use daily.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25621426

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

In a similar line of thinking. Some kind of bulk charging system may make technical sense (eg EMT's, Police, Fire, Ambulance) where seconds save lives. So they can just drop their entire kit on top of the charger and pick it up without having to carefully disconnect every power cord.

This makes sense assuming the devices gain a sufficient amount of charge between being set down and being taken out again, which I suppose is probably likely, but just to play devil's advocate, if that wasn't the case, the choice would be spend 2 extra seconds plugging in and removing a cable and charging at, idk, 30 W, or spending only 1 second setting the device on a pad but charging at like 10 W, and then running out of power while in the field, and that doesn't make it look so good.

Quote

[...] This also removes the potential for "hacking" via USB chargers.

This is true though.  For the sake of completeness, I think it's worth mentioning that you can get "USB condoms" that pass only the power pins and disconnect the data pins, not to mention you can also just not charge in public which seems like an obvious and good idea.  But, in the same way that the option of a dongle doesn't excuse removing the headphone jack, I have to accept that power only being an inherent (and in this case desirable) trait of the tech is nicer than carrying a protection dongle/wire.

 

Edit: I should just mention, especially given the context of this topic, that the usefulness of wireless charging is not an argument or reason to not have a traditional port, it's simply a reason to (also) have wireless charging.  They do different things, one does not replace the other.

[Lii]

after the removal of the jack on the iphone, I always thinked that they are gonna get rid of the lighting port, possibly with a propretary wireless charge that works only with "certificated" products for "avoiding damages"

[Camoxide]

Even the Apple Watch still has a (hidden) port so I can't see the iPhone going completely portless. Possibly they'll replace it with the smart connector? 

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

This makes sense assuming the devices gain a sufficient amount of charge between being set down and being taken out again, which I suppose is probably likely, but just to play devil's advocate, if that wasn't the case, the choice would be spend 2 extra seconds plugging in and removing a cable and charging at, idk, 30 W, or spending only 1 second setting the device on a pad but charging at like 10 W, and then running out of power while in the field, and that doesn't make it look so good.

This is true though.  For the sake of completeness, I think it's worth mentioning that you can get "USB condoms" that pass only the power pins and disconnect the data pins, not to mention you can also just not charge in public which seems like an obvious and good idea.  But, in the same way that the option of a dongle doesn't excuse removing the headphone jack, I have to accept that power only being an inherent (and in this case desirable) trait of the tech is nicer than carrying a protection dongle/wire.

 

Edit: I should just mention, especially given the context of this topic, that the usefulness of wireless charging is not an argument or reason to not have a traditional port, it's simply a reason to (also) have wireless charging.  They do different things, one does not replace the other.

Yeah, I mean as an option, it's fine to have the wireless charging, but as a technical solution, it's a solution looking for a problem, and the number of problems solved with wireless-only is few and largely come down to security or convenience, not efficiency.

 

Wireless charging only adds a slight convenience advantage over a physical connection, but since it charges at half the speed, it's not a time saver. So in a situation where you have to remove the phone from the charger several times per day, yes, that might be the logical solution. So EMT, and IT people, and those who constantly have to attend meetings or presentations might be more inclined to use the wireless charging because charging just once per day won't last all day.

 

Side note: My iPhone 6S did not last all day, but the XS lasts all day. I have not used the wireless charging and haven't been inclined to do so though the way I use the phone at work would probably justify having the wireless charger at work.

 

Now, on the flip side. BC Ferries has USB ports. Amtrak has USB ports. Wireless charging doesn't work in this case. Wireless is only convenient where you will not need the phone, or have the phone out of reach.

[Totallycasual]

I just want them to make a small model again, i don't need a phablet/supercomputer in my pocket with a crazy camera, i just want something the size of the original 5 with smoother edges and basic smartphone functionality.  

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

and pick it up without having to carefully disconnect every power cord.

They aint using normal phones, plus the stuff they use have docks that made for exactly this. Quickly stuck them in and pull them out as needed without worrying about anything

[DoctorNick]

This would be cool if we could have phones with very small batteries and true wireless charging over RF. Who cares about a "wireless" charging pad. I don't see why slower charging without pluging in a cable is even usefull.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

They aint using normal phones, plus the stuff they use have docks that made for exactly this. Quickly stuck them in and pull them out as needed without worrying about anything

So, basically Wii U docks.

 

No in all seriousness, I had a Toshiba e830 PDA that had a slide-on type of dock. This is also why I mentioned earlier the thing about the 30-pin connectors. the 30-pin style connectors that PDA type devices all had for years all suck because the PCB edge cracks.

 

The smartest charging system anyone has invented to date was the Magsafe 2 connector, but it's not really the best physical shape (it can be reversed, but it's recessed on the cable side and device side, making it far to large to use on a mobile phone.) The best shape would be one that has just 3 pins, and negotiates the power, while sending 1.5-20V DC over reversible power pins. If you incorporate data, you then need more pins. Hence why I suggested some kind of USB-C magnetic connector. The ones mentioned earlier only pass power IIRC.

 

[jagdtigger]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

but it's not really the best physical shape

And what if they put pads on the backside of the phone then use pogo pins on the connector and some neodymium magnets?

[Commodus]

11 hours ago, Newenthusiast said:

I just want them to make a small model again, i don't need a phablet/supercomputer in my pocket with a crazy camera, i just want something the size of the original 5 with smoother edges and basic smartphone functionality.  

You probably won't get back to the iPhone 5's size again, but you might get something closer.  The current analyst rumors/leaks have Apple releasing a 5.4-inch iPhone in 2020, probably around the usual September time frame.  I'm guessing that would be an SE-style model, not necessarily a shrunken iPhone 11 but something smaller and semi-affordable with a more effective use of screen space than an iPhone 8.

[Totallycasual]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

You probably won't get back to the iPhone 5's size again, but you might get something closer.  The current analyst rumors/leaks have Apple releasing a 5.4-inch iPhone in 2020, probably around the usual September time frame.  I'm guessing that would be an SE-style model, not necessarily a shrunken iPhone 11 but something smaller and semi-affordable with a more effective use of screen space than an iPhone 8.

Awesome! 

[NumLock21]

Next up it will be the screen

 

After that, here is iPhone of the future.

 

[CiBi]

On 12/8/2019 at 9:57 PM, 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.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 9:36 PM, 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. 

 

Whats the relation between Disney and wireless charging?

[corsairian]

On 12/5/2019 at 4:55 PM, RyomaSJibenG said:

next remove the phone itself and plant apple chips in your brain so you can contact telepathically

Like Futurama. Look up Eyephone. I cant post the video link.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Little late to the "but wireless charging!" party. Also a nerdy warning:

 

Wireless charging is basically putting two circuits coupled by a transformer together, only you can move the two coils away from each other. The first problem is that transformers can only transmit energy if they're subjected to AC current. This is because a transformer is basically two inductors that are close enough to each other such that their magnetic fields influence each other. A magnetic field can induce electric current on a conductor, but only if the magnetic field is changing. So the reason why DC current won't work here is the transformer will simply "charge up" and then the magnetic field stops changing, and thus it stops influencing the secondary coil.

 

Establishing that, here's the basic problem of wireless charging: it has to go through a DC to AC conversion first, then the other side has to convert AC back to DC. Funny thing though, the transformer part and AC to DC conversion is actually a thing with computer PSUs. So you might go "aha! PSUs can be 95% efficient, so wireless charging can be equally so!" Except I want to say it takes a lot to get to that 95% efficiency and even then the PSU is using techniques that can generate a crapton of EMI.

 

Considering that the amount of power going over the wireless charger isn't all that much, I wouldn't be surprised if wireless charging on the receiving end is lower than 80% simply because it's not worth the cost to make it good enough and the power dissipation is small enough that heat isn't really a concern. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if all the receiver end is doing to convert the AC back to DC is a simple half-bridge rectifier (which means you're already losing 50% of the power) with maybe a filter cap or two

[Bombastinator]

41 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Little late to the "but wireless charging!" party. Also a nerdy warning:

 

Wireless charging is basically putting two circuits coupled by a transformer together, only you can move the two coils away from each other. The first problem is that transformers can only transmit energy if they're subjected to AC current. This is because a transformer is basically two inductors that are close enough to each other such that their magnetic fields influence each other. A magnetic field can induce electric current on a conductor, but only if the magnetic field is changing. So the reason why DC current won't work here is the transformer will simply "charge up" and then the magnetic field stops changing, and thus it stops influencing the secondary coil.

 

Establishing that, here's the basic problem of wireless charging: it has to go through a DC to AC conversion first, then the other side has to convert AC back to DC. Funny thing though, the transformer part and AC to DC conversion is actually a thing with computer PSUs. So you might go "aha! PSUs can be 95% efficient, so wireless charging can be equally so!" Except I want to say it takes a lot to get to that 95% efficiency and even then the PSU is using techniques that can generate a crapton of EMI.

 

Considering that the amount of power going over the wireless charger isn't all that much, I wouldn't be surprised if wireless charging on the receiving end is lower than 80% simply because it's not worth the cost to make it good enough and the power dissipation is small enough that heat isn't really a concern. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if all the receiver end is doing to convert the AC back to DC is a simple half-bridge rectifier (which means you're already losing 50% of the power) with maybe a filter cap or two

I remember reading that the Qi is 70% efficient, which would mean it’s using a full bridge.  There’s still not much in the way of electronics in those things.  90% of them is a big floppy copper coil about an inch and a half in diameter.  Several feet of wire though at least.  There is some electronics attached, but it’s a few components on a flexible pcb (for thinned I suspect). I knew the tesla thing was likely all about AC because tesla was all about AC, just as Edison was all about DC, and the two used to fight like cats and dogs.

 

if it’s 70% efficient wouldn’t that mean that 30% is heat though?

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 

if it’s 70% efficient wouldn’t that mean that 30% is heat though?

 

Heat, current induced in unwanted circuits,  EM radiated away from the device and very small amount of sound energy.   Although I doubt the 70% rating.   I wouldn't mind seeing some independent test s on that,  most companies like to exaggerate the figures on their products.  I just bough a pair of 5.25" speakers that the box claims to be 250W RMS .

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Heat, current induced in unwanted circuits,  EM radiated away from the device and very small amount of sound energy.   Although I doubt the 70% rating.   I wouldn't mind seeing some independent test s on that,  most companies like to exaggerate the figures on their products.  I just bough a pair of 5.25" speakers that the box claims to be 250W RMS .

 

I would love to see you pump 250w rms through them just to see the coils melt. How they get away with that kind of marketing bull is beyond me. Then again, I too do not believe the 70%. If that is true I can guarantee real world use will never reach that. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 Although I doubt the 70% rating.   I wouldn't mind seeing some independent test s on that,  most companies like to exaggerate the figures on their products.

The other problem is I don't think people are counting the efficiency end-to-end. They're probably just counting the efficiency from coil to the output of the wireless charger circuitry. As I mentioned before, there's still a DC to AC conversion assuming you're using a USB charger. I'm pretty sure even that's not as efficient.

 

Just as a WAG, based on a inductive charger receiver chip, a P9025AC (https://www.idt.com/us/en/document/dst/p9025ac-datasheet), the manufacturer claims about 76% peak efficiency. So let's just say we can use this on the transmitter end, 76%. If your target output is 5W, you'd need at least 8.7W to get there, assuming the inductive coils don't introduce any loss. So realistically speaking it's probably more like 9.5-10W.

 

That's pretty terrible.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Heat, current induced in unwanted circuits,  EM radiated away from the device and very small amount of sound energy.   Although I doubt the 70% rating.   I wouldn't mind seeing some independent test s on that,  most companies like to exaggerate the figures on their products.  I just bough a pair of 5.25" speakers that the box claims to be 250W RMS .

 

Yeah, I never metered it.  I could I suppose.  I’ve got receiver pads that have microUSB2 out on them.  It was just what it said in the literature.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

I would love to see you pump 250w rms through them just to see the coils melt. How they get away with that kind of marketing bull is beyond me. Then again, I too do not believe the 70%. If that is true I can guarantee real world use will never reach that. 

At least the guy in shop was not trying to deny the crap.  I asked what he thought the genuine rating might be, he said given that brands other claims on larger stuff,  it isn't likely going to be half of that.   I feel much more at home buying from people who understand their products and repeat the sale crap