Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Finally Killed AirPower

ifixit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 280 posts

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#41

Post by darkpuma »

sneak wrote: post #34
slimsag wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to make profit is to introduce both the problem and the solution.

The amount of money Apple makes from selling replacement cables due to fatigue due to inadequate (in their opinion “ugly”) strain relief is negligible. Please stop spreading this inaccurate meme. Apple makes money because they sell metric shitloads of $1200 phones and $600 watches and, increasingly, software and services for them. Not cables.

I can get an Amazon Basic's brand USB-C cable for $4.17 per meter. Apple sells theirs for $19 per meter.

Is Apple selling these cables at cost, or are they making a profit from them? Amazon isn't a brand I trust either, but from the magnitude of that difference I'm pretty sure Apple is making a tidy profit on these cables. I don't think Apple is a trillion dollar company because of cable sales, but from where I sit it sure seems like Apple is a company that loves nickel and diming people even though they don't need to.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#42

Post by miahi »

samtho wrote: post #19
brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

Cables are subject to breaking (specifically the connectors) and given how hard it is for many phones to listen to music via headphones and charge at the same time, I can see the appeal. Also, jacks are only rated for a limited number of cycles (connects, disconnects) due to the fact that there is mechanical connection taking place. In the future, I imagine wireless charging being built into key pieces of furniture (…

Wireless charging is not without costs. One of the costs is that coil heating the article talks about is not limited to the charger, the phone coil also heats up. And being usually stuck to the battery, the already stressed battery (by the charging) is also stressed by the additional coil heat - not good for the non-replaceable battery. I understand that phones (even $1000 ones) are disposable these days, but this makes them even more short-lived.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#43

Post by quotemstr »

itslennysfault wrote: post #33
brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

I agree totally. Not to mention that wireless charging uses about 40% more power. Which for charging phones is a small amount until you think of every person on the planet charging their phone every day.

> Which for charging phones is a small amount until you think of every person on the planet charging their phone every day.

It is a small amount of power though.

There are about 4.68 billion mobile phone users; let's assume each has one phone. Let's be conservative and assume that all these phones have high-end battery packs, on the order of 4,000 mAh. Let's be even more conservative and assume each phone is used to depletion and recharged each day. Let's assume a voltage of 4V, so we end up with 2.7e14 joules used recharging mobile phones per day. In 2014 (so conservative, for 2019), human civilization produced 23,816 terrawatt-hours of electricity, or about 8.6e19 joules per year or 2.6e17 joules per day. (Let's also assume electricity production and consumption are equal.) Even under this very conservative estimate, cell phones charging accounts for 0.115% of world electricity consumption. Increasing that figure by 40% is negligible.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#44

Post by seanmcdirmid »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

It really is a matter of convenience. Micro-USB is so annoying because of the dexterity needed to plug it in, lightning and USB C are much better because you don’t have to think about the orientation, wireless is better than that because you don’t have to attach any wires.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#45

Post by katbyte »

darkpuma wrote: post #24
samtho wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cables are subject to breaking (specifically the connectors) and given how hard it is for many phones to listen to music via headphones and charge at the same time, I can see the appeal. Also, jacks are only rated for a limited number of cycles (connects, disconnects) due to the fact that there is mechanical connection taking place. In the future, I imagine wireless charging being built into key pieces of furniture (…

> "Cables are subject to breaking (specifically the connectors)" Apple cables are. Somehow I don't have this problem with other brands... ever.

Don’t know what you do to your Apple cables but I don’t think I’ve ever bought one in however many years since iPhone 3s.

I think two have gone bad, both replaced by Apple care.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#46

Post by wizzard »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

I was of the same opinion until I got a charging pad from Costco for Christmas. I decided to try it out to be polite, and was surprised at how much I like it. I don't have to fish for the cable, I don't have to try to plug it into the speakers a few times in the dark before finding the right port, and if I want to pick up my phone to check something really quick I can just do it without unplugging or having to hover near the cord. Life-changing, no, but certainly worth a few bucks to me.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#47

Post by brian-armstrong »

whynotminot wrote: post #32
brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

I think the real point is the eventual removal of the port altogether. If you can sync your phone over Wifi, stream to audio over Bluetooth, and reliably and quickly charge wirelessly, then you can remove the port altogether allowing for thinner, more robust, more water resistant designs. It's probably also cheaper to boot. That's the wireless future that I imagine Apple was/maybe still is imagining.

My phone still has a headphone jack, so removing 1 port still leaves me with 1.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#48

Post by magnetic »

wizzard wrote: post #46
brian-armstrong wrote: post #11

So my phone is charged by a cable. It plugs into the wall on one side and then plugs into my phone on the other. This system works great - I plug my phone in when I go to bed and unplug it when I wake up. The cable is long enough to plug into my phone even if I want to use it in bed. It's easy, cheap and failproof. What is the draw of wireless charging? What is it that I'm missing? Did anyone ask for this?

I was of the same opinion until I got a charging pad from Costco for Christmas. I decided to try it out to be polite, and was surprised at how much I like it. I don't have to fish for the cable, I don't have to try to plug it into the speakers a few times in the dark before finding the right port, and if I want to pick up my phone to check something really quick I can just do it without unplugging or having to hover…

Could you please tell what SKU/product it was?

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#49

Post by saagarjha »

adrianN wrote: post #35
sneak wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money Apple makes from selling replacement cables due to fatigue due to inadequate (in their opinion “ugly”) strain relief is negligible. Please stop spreading this inaccurate meme. Apple makes money because they sell metric shitloads of $1200 phones and $600 watches and, increasingly, software and services for them. Not cables.

I wonder how many people choose to get a replacement device when their cable breaks.

Very few, I’d imagine.

Re: What Finally Killed AirPower

#50

Post by cannonedhamster »

drcode wrote: post #13
pkaye wrote: post #5

> The FCC rules for wireless charging devices like AirPower are quite strict, and limit exposure to 20 cm (8 in) above the device to 50 mW/cm^2. I'm surprised they waited till the end to do the testing. When I used to work on hardware products at smaller companies, some preliminary tests are done on early designs to make sure we have a comfortable margin. A company like Apple should have dedicated in-house facilities…

They probably knew they were close to the legal limit and their engineers probably said on a hunch "we can stay beneath the limit and retain adequate power with the right mix of tricks" and then just ended up being wrong on that hunch by a little bit. The laws of physics are very unforgiving.

That's why we have to bend them so often in real life with tricks. In media they can just make something up, we've got to find real solutions. I'm sure that one exists but it's either too expensive currently or not consistent enough yet. Yet being the key word there. I'm sure this will be an elegantly solved issue at some point, just might require some more smarts on the hardware side.
Post reply on HN