Slashdot Mirror
Apple Developing Wireless Charging For Mobile Devices (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Apple is currently working with partners in the US and Asia to develop wireless charging for iPhone and iPad. Mobile devices with wireless charging capabilities could be released as soon as next year. Apple has not released the specific details on the range that could be available, but as far back as 2010, Apple applied for a patent to use an iMac as a wireless charging hub for distances of 1 meter. In 2014 it applied for a patent on specialized housing for a mobile device with an integrated RF antenna, which would also allow for wireless charging by helping to eliminate the problem of metallic interference with charging signals. Apple would apparently be building on these ideas to create a new iPhone or iPad that could charge further away from the hub, while continuing to be used.
I remember seeing that experiment in high school with a Tesla coil powering a tube light without having to touch it. Aren't there health concerns with that much electricity in the air though?
....its going to be colored white.
Another factor: How efficient is it - I predict a considerable transmission loss too, and in this era of energy saving dictates it might be a bad idea.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's called Apple Wave.
INNOVATION
For those who'll say "it's been done before:" no, not like this.
Current wireless charging amounts to dropping your device on a pad. You can't grab your device to use it (since you'll break the power link), and of course this limits just where your device can sit.
The Slashdot post (and the source link) undersells the story. Here, Apple would have wireless charging that doesn't depend on resting the device on a contact pad -- you'd just have to get within range of the charger. Imagine plunking down your iPhone anywhere on your desk and knowing that it'll top up. This kind of technology has been discussed for a while, but hasn't really been implemented on a practical level.
It's an old idea, expanded on greatly by Robert Heinlein in "Waldo", in which the whole world was powered wireless, including spaceships.
It's telling how much Edison and Westinghouse buried Tesla's work for a century. God, they hated that man.
That's one thing that's bugging me with all these wireless charging ideas. I don't care which company makes it, wasting energy for the sake of not having to connect a wire is the perfect example of "First world problem".
Engineers: Hey everyone, we figured out a way to save 5% of our energy!
Tech companies: Great, because all our new devices waste over 50% of the energy they use every day!
I think it will be good because ive yet to see a non pad type wireless charger in the wild. However I worry about apples rabid lawyers who will probbably sue anyone who try's to make anything similar.
Anyone remember the magsafe connectors? Very few other companies are using similar connections even today.
Decent magsafe type headphone and power connectors for other devices are just now starting to come out this year and I've yet to see any of those in person either.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I'm so sick of the 15,000 wires that break, wall warts (whoever came up with that name should be given warts), and all that crap. A matt to place things on or some magnetic thing or whatever would be great. Of course, it has to still leave room for my girls to use the cases they want and bling out their phones.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
I have a wireless tea kettle that seems pretty efficient. It's also very high power. There is no physical electrical contact anywhere in the system.
Whats the percental loss of energy when the device is so far away? Similar to the loss in sound volume?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
And how does it "seem pretty efficient" to you? Do you know exactly how much less power it would require without the wireless part?
Apple didn't invent it either, they just bought the company that did.
I certainly hope you are joking.
Definitely get a pair of wireless headphones - no more cables for the dog to trip over, or to get pulled out when there's a sudden emergency downstairs. But the only problem is charging via USB.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I once got a titanium drill bit stuck in my tooth at a university dental clinic. Didn't hear any radio stations (at least not when awake or asleep), but my tooth would heat up when I used the mobile phone.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It will be incompatible with everything else on the market and the drones will hail Apple as the first one to bring it to market, oh and it will be inefficient as fark and make peoples metal dental work buzz.
It will be 5% efficient, the other 95% will be lost to the reality distortion field.
Assuming it is like you said, and don't have any physical connection at all (although most of these devices actually do), then it use induction.
Now the article is talking about working at ~1meter around the power source. Does your kettle work when that far away from the base?
No, but it would if you raised the frequency above 60hz. All of this stuff is described by Maxwell's equations. More specifically, the Maxwell–Faraday equation which says an electric field is created that it proportional to the time derivative of a magnetic field.
MagSafe seems like the ideal solution... but it isn't shiny and new.
Imagine a phone with NO ports. It uses wireless for charging. It uses Bluetooth for headphones. It uses wifi/cellular for voice and data. The battery isn't user-servicable. It doesn't need any ports. It could be manufactured in a factory-sealed seamless she'll for guaranteed waterproofing.
(except: I don't know how you'd do microphone or speakers...)
Never mind, all the extra electromagnetic emissions will probably not be harmful.
Another factor: How efficient is it - I predict a considerable transmission loss too, and in this era of energy saving dictates it might be a bad idea.
And the same people that buy electric vehicles and look down their noses at all the inferior people are the same ones that buy wireless everything and would use one of these wireless chargers.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
And WiTricity...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
sure its been done, but just like micro USB, you cant expect apple to use those common technologies. they have to have their own!!!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Energeous (NASDAQ: WATT) has been working on some innovative wireless charging tech for a few years. What's cool about them is that they IPO'd to raise funds (effectively) so there's a lot of behind-the-scenes info you can glean from their SEC filings that you normally don't see with a small startup.
They've been working with a Tier 1 provider for a while. They haven't disclosed who. But they're based down the road from Cupertino...
The stock already jumped Friday on this news, but it's still trading below its moving average.
Agreed. Apple spent the last decade making their technology more and more energy efficient. This seems like it is a step straight backwards. You still have to have a device plugged into your wall with a cable up to some sort of charging plate, so (ignoring any theoretical differences in ease of waterproofing) the sole difference between wireless charging and wired charging from a user's perspective is saving about two seconds when you get home at night, and half a second to unplug it in the morning. Even if you're only losing one or two percent, if every device did this, it would add up to real money.
I don't buy the Qi folks' argument that it makes it easier to keep it on the charger all the time, so people will do so. Apart from technology workers who sit at a desk all day, that isn't very practical. People don't leave their phone off the charger all day because it is inconvenient to plug in a cable. They leave their phone off the charger all day because they want to always have it with them, and it is too much hassle even without having to plug it in. And when you factor in the percentage of iPhone users who keep their phone in a case (and thus would get dramatically worse transfer efficiency), the entire concept seems borderline insane.
Now if you told me they were going to bundle a wireless charging station for the Apple TV remote—a device that you pick up several times an hour while in use, that you don't put in a case to protect it, and that you want to always be able to grab without worrying about whether it is charged—that would make a lot of sense. But a cell phone? It just seems like a frivolous waste of power, not to mention space inside the device. And with people already complaining about inadequate battery life, with entire industries springing up to provide pre-charged external battery packs at airports, and with even Apple getting into the external battery pack market, wasting space inside the device for a charging feature that saves at most a few seconds per day seems like just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard, with the possible exception of the rumor that they're going to remove the headphone jack....
Then again, Apple's whole charging story is making less and less sense with every passing year. My parents recently bought one of the new Apple TV models, and we were shocked when we realized that although they provide a lightning cable to charge the remote control, they didn't bother to include a USB port on the device to plug that cable into. So unless you have some other device to use as a charger, when you get an Apple TV in the mail, the very first thing you have to do is go out to the store and drop another twenty bucks on a charger that Apple should have provided as part of the device for a unit cost of maybe five cents....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
They haven't had the outrageous markup and rounded edges treatment.
love is just extroverted narcissism
And a good thing too. Micro USB is total shit. I can't count how many of those connectors have broken on me. Lightning cables are at least sturdy enough on the connector side. Thankfully it looks like the new USB 3.1 connector solves a lot of the failure issues micro USB has had. Plus, like lightning, it's reversible.
Funny, my wife has snapped two Lightning connectors and I've snapped one, but all of my micro USB connectors outlive the cables they're attached to. Must be a quality control issue with the 50 cent cables you buy?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I am not an audiophile, but the tiny amp inside wireless headphones usually suck.
Stop buying the cheapest pair on the rack.
"His name was James Damore."
My tea kettle doesn't have any wires either and also doesn't physically touch the power source.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Even the most expensive pair can't hold a hand to a set of affordable top of the line headphones. That's the thing, you can spend $500 on an okay set of wireless headphones, or you can spend $500 on about the best headphones money can buy. You're making compromises regardless of how much money you spend.
I have both types. But I only use the wireless set for watching TV at night.
I don't care which company makes it, wasting energy for the sake of not having to connect a wire is the perfect example of "First world problem".
This is a cop-out excuse that can be likened to the no-child-left-behind policy. Just because we're not in the 3rd world doesn't mean we should abandon search for new efficiencies. The results can always be weighed up in a cost-benefit analysis. Would I buy a wireless charging dock just to keep my phone charged at work? No, waste of money, no real benefit. Do I have one at home on my bedside table? Yep. Because fumbling for a damn charger at 1am without waking someone else or attempting to silence an alarm without my arm getting caught in a cable tangle is worth it.
I other news I also "waste" energy by powering an energy monitor, by not switching my TV off at the wall (It takes a tad over 1min to boot up), and with a sensor based nightlight so I don't trip on crap dueing a 2am toilet run after a night out. But kicking my toe can also be considered a "First world problem" so we shouldn't put any effort into solving it right?
You obviously have never used a wireless charger. They are definitely more convenient. And the wasted power argument is silly when compared to other gadgets (50" tvs).
Interesting.
I have never broken a micro USB cable despite tripping over them many times.
I have, however, broken 2 lightning cables with very little force, the paddle (piece with the conductors on either side) breaks off easily.
You are giving up sturdiness (metal housing in a trapezoidal shape protecting the conductors) for convenience (no metal housing which allows reversible plug).
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The difference here is that Apple's purported solution requires no physical contact with the device. No mat, no pad, just use your device anywhere within the range of the charger and it'll charge wirelessly, over-the-air.
They certainly didn't invent it, and it isn't innovative at this point, but if they're the first ones to put it into widespread use, they'll likely reap a lot of well-deserved credit in the media.
If Apple builds the technology in to a platform which already has widespread use, then that technology will have widespread use as well... It doesn't say anything else about the technology however (whether or not it is good, or even if it is useful).
It's like saying IE was the best browser because it was so widely used for a time... but that was only because it was the default browser on the dominant (at the time) platform.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
It's like saying IE was the best browser because it was so widely used for a time
Correlation != causation. Contrary to your reading, I neither suggested nor implied that things are good because they're widespread. Rather, I spent a paragraph explaining the differentiating factor for this technology and then suggested that a company stood to gain by getting it to market first. Which is true. Having widespread use is necessary, but by no means is it causative, nor does being widespread mean they're better.
In fact, the reason I specified "widespread" was not because I was making the value judgement that "more = better" (which is what you seem to have inferred), but rather because I was suggesting that "more widespread = more relevant". While you or I may be interested in neat technologies like over-the-air wireless charging, it's utterly irrelevant to Everyday Joes until they can get their hands on it. As such, component companies putting together neat little demos are one thing, but it's something else entirely when the technology is in a device that anyone can buy. That sort of news is worth of a lot more attention in the general media, which is what I was saying.
The wasted power argument isn't silly. Yes, there's a lot of power waste that I could shave off elsewhere. I'm not one of those people who puts mechanical power switches on their TVs to save a few dollars a year or anything. But when I buy electronics, I do expect manufacturers to do their best to minimize power consumption, within reason, and I actually have replaced equipment when I determined that the power savings would pay for the replacement in under 5 years, so as a consumer I do at least pay some attention to power consumption. It isn't the most important thing, but it isn't unimportant, particularly when my marginal power rate is almost 35 cents per kWh.
More importantly, I'm savvy enough to understand that every device in my house wastes some amount of power, and when I upgrade equipment, I expect the new equipment to be at least as efficient as whatever it replaced, and to always exhibit lower idle power consumption. Whenever technology goes the opposite direction, there had better be a darn good reason why, and saving two seconds when I plug my phone in at night doesn't qualify as a darn good reason to me.
As for convenience, as I said, it takes all of two seconds to plug my phone into a charger when I get home at night. To me, any convenience argument is silly, because the difference in convenience between a charging pad on my bedside table and a bare cord is so slight.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Google didn't create Android either, they just bought the company that did.
Your point?
Yeah, I fully expect them to invent and trademark some new type of force to accommodate this. Electromagnetic won't possibly do for an Apple product.