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

Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

righto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#111

Post by mark-r »

perl4ever wrote: post #99
moftz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are doing something so well and making tons of money, why spend money on what will absolutely ruin your core business? Personal computers weren't just going to supplement the copier business, they would seriously ruin it. But there was also a chance computers would flop so why spend the money on trying to ruin your core business and not succeed? People found uses for computers that the pioneers could never ima…

Your summary doesn't address and can't possibly apply to the period from ~1980 to 2005, during which personal computers were well established. Also, it's the exact same generic story people tell about, say, Kodak.

Kodak gets picked on unfairly. They weren't completely blind to the digital camera revolution, they produced the first digital camera prototype but it was laughably incapable. Their problem was building a business model that took a cut from every picture snapped, from film to processing to printing. There was nothing in the digital camera model that could duplicate that revenue stream; even if they had sold every digital camera ever made, it would not have saved them. Their final undoing was overestimating the importance of printed pictures, in the end it turned out people would rather see their pictures on their screens.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#112

Post by dddw »

dehrmann wrote: post #83
tim333 wrote: post #44

And now power supplies are getting another step smaller and more efficient by switching from silicon transistors to GaN. ( https://www.cui.com/blog/how-gallium-nitride-gan-enables-sma... )

Any advice on buying these? A lot of the GaN bricks look impressive, but they're always made by a sketchy peripheral maker.

I can recommend the minix 66w gan charger. Ideal for travel.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#113

Post by R0b0t1 »

nimish wrote: post #98
alexose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using a GaN-based power supply for my MacBook Pro and it's just as good as advertised. Slightly bigger than a deck of cards, yet it runs cooler than the stock unit. Hopefully this tech finds its way into more devices as it gets cheaper. It would be neat to have GaN based inverters for electric cars.

Tesla use silicon carbide which has favorable temp and reliability over Gan for higher voltage operation.

For highest end stuff you use both. They have different properties. SiC matters for reverse recovery of the inverter.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#114

Post by codeisawesome »

alexose wrote: post #82
tim333 wrote: post #44

And now power supplies are getting another step smaller and more efficient by switching from silicon transistors to GaN. ( https://www.cui.com/blog/how-gallium-nitride-gan-enables-sma... )

I've been using a GaN-based power supply for my MacBook Pro and it's just as good as advertised. Slightly bigger than a deck of cards, yet it runs cooler than the stock unit. Hopefully this tech finds its way into more devices as it gets cheaper. It would be neat to have GaN based inverters for electric cars.

I thought this was a new "ML powered" charger of some type until I googled... interesting find.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#115

Post by X-Istence »

scottlamb wrote: post #109
dehrmann wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any advice on buying these? A lot of the GaN bricks look impressive, but they're always made by a sketchy peripheral maker.

* Make sure they are UL listed for safety, as Animats pointed out in an earlier discussion. [1] Some aren't, even from well-known brands like Anker. * If they are multi-port, make sure you're happy with how they distribute power. Most likely you want the majority of the power going to port 1 where you stick a laptop, but some drop it down to 50W or lower if you just have a cable in one of the other spots, much less a…

Even-though the Anker brick I have does not have an Underwriters Laboratory logo on it, it does have a TUV and a CE logo. TUV is the equivalent to UL but is a testing house mostly geared towards Europe.

That being said, TUV like UL is listed as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in the United States (for more information see: https://www.tuv.com/usa/en/ctuvus-certification.html) and thus is just as safe.

The UL logo may be more recognizable in the US, however they too certify for both markets, with UL also having their UL EU certification program.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#117

Post by BugWatch »

booi wrote: post #77
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs made the claim in his biography. Read the article or the book.

To be fair, he (and many other people) consider significant quality and design improvements as “revolutionary”. I tend to agree especially when the entire industry makes garbage. For example the touchpad. It’s still one of the top reasons not to switch to anything else for me. Nothing else comes close to being as accurate and natural.

I'd say the word "revolutionary" has just become an inflationary term for "evolutionary": really - it's thrown around willy nilly with everyone, PR guys, and their mother to describe any sort of improvement (or, more often, "improvement").

It really dimishes (and mostly eliminates) its value.

And yes, it so grinds my gears.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#118

Post by byw »

tim333 wrote: post #44

And now power supplies are getting another step smaller and more efficient by switching from silicon transistors to GaN. ( https://www.cui.com/blog/how-gallium-nitride-gan-enables-sma... )

Can this also be used for electric car inverters?

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#119

Post by harperlee »

BugWatch wrote: post #117
booi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, he (and many other people) consider significant quality and design improvements as “revolutionary”. I tend to agree especially when the entire industry makes garbage. For example the touchpad. It’s still one of the top reasons not to switch to anything else for me. Nothing else comes close to being as accurate and natural.

I'd say the word "revolutionary" has just become an inflationary term for "evolutionary": really - it's thrown around willy nilly with everyone, PR guys, and their mother to describe any sort of improvement (or, more often, "improvement"). It really dimishes (and mostly eliminates) its value. And yes, it so grinds my gears.

Etymologically, it works (you “give another turn” to the base idea, you take an existing idea and you flip it, you tighten the screw on an existing idea, you adjust course by turning an existing direction, etc.)

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#120

Post by setpatchaddress »

fsckboy wrote: post #35
wyager wrote: post #2

While obviously Jobs’ claim was false, I will say that Apple is the only company I am aware of that manufacturers power supplies which are reliably completely free of perceptible inductor whine. I have very acute high-frequency hearing and I often have to replace non-Apple USB(-C) switching power supplies with Apple ones so I don’t go crazy from the whining. Teardowns of Apple PSUs typically reveal very favorable ele…

> Apple is the only company I am aware of that manufacturers power supplies which are reliably completely free of perceptible inductor whine...I often have to replace non-Apple USB(-C) switching power supplies it's a well-studied economic fact that monopolists generally sell higher quality products, and it helps them maintain their monopoly. With their market power and the fat margins they earn, there is plenty of bu…

> it's a well-studied economic fact that monopolists generally sell higher quality products

What does this have to do with Apple, which has neither the completely captive market that AT&T did nor the overwhelming market control that IBM did?

Post reply on HN