chickenboo wrote on Mar 24, 2025, 15:27:
I've heard wireless charging is very inefficient and overheats devices quite a bit. It's even worse in vehicles. Wireless CarPlay/Android Auto has inherent lag where cabled-version does not, at the cost of plugging in the phone to the car.

My take on this situation: Apple hates having to license USB C (I assume there are related costs they must pay out, where before they had a nice licensing agreement with Intel for Lightning technology). But there's also this from the article:

Additionally, syncing data with iCloud remains the only pathway to access information.

There we are: they want to force users to transmit all files via iCloud and not via cable where they can gain better direct access to their devices. This is about control and about iCloud Services revenue.

I don't do clouds too.

I've heard wireless charging is very inefficient and overheats devices quite a bit. It's even worse in vehicles. Wireless CarPlay/Android Auto has inherent lag where cabled-version does not, at the cost of plugging in the phone to the car.

My take on this situation: Apple hates having to license USB C (I assume there are related costs they must pay out, where before they had a nice licensing agreement with Intel for Lightning technology). But there's also this from the article:

Additionally, syncing data with iCloud remains the only pathway to access information.

There we are: they want to force users to transmit all files via iCloud and not via cable where they can gain better direct access to their devices. This is about control and about iCloud Services revenue.

Jivaro wrote on Mar 18, 2025, 19:16:
AGAIN: I want to say this to be clear....I am not advocating for this change, not yet anyway, as wireless charging is way too slow currently to be the only way to charge a phone IMHO.

At present, yes. You also can't easily use the phone and charge at the same time. I guess that's a little different with the magnetic ones Apple uses, but it's still less easy to just sit on the couch and charge while using.

My OnePlus charges at an insane rate, going from 0-100 in 36 minutes. More often, it means getting 20% in about 7 minutes before I run out somewhere. It's incredibly freeing.

Speed, stability, etc. Wireless is slow and unstable!

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 18, 2025, 08:11:
This is just a scam so they can sell more wireless chargers. Let me guess, the only wireless charger that will work with this will be an iPhone "compatible" one, which will be sold at a premium.

Good luck charging that phone if you happen to forget your wireless charger at home (this has happened to me more times than I can count, and I had no problems with finding someone who could lend me their cord or charger) when you're going somewhere.

USB-C chargers are everywhere, and they are dirt cheap. How much do wireless chargers cost?

The iPhone and everyone else use the same wireless charging tech. Samsung, iPhone...all have the same wireless charger. It's called the Qi standard, established by the Wireless Power Consortium (WPC). Given Apple's history, I would have expected a proprietary tech as well..lol.

The charger itself is on a cable so a wireless charger isn't really any harder to keep around than a cable. It's just got one end that is bigger than a normal cable. Additionally, as mentioned above, if everyone is using the same wireless charger standard, then getting a charge from someone else should be as easy as it is today with cables. Maybe easier if other smartphone companies follow suit.

Wireless chargers for cars on Amazon cost 22 dollars. Normal generic wireless chargers can be bought for 4 bucks on Amazon currently. A generic USB-C cable is currently 6 or 7 bucks.

AGAIN: I want to say this to be clear....I am not advocating for this change, not yet anyway, as wireless charging is way too slow currently to be the only way to charge a phone IMHO.

This is just a scam so they can sell more wireless chargers. Let me guess, the only wireless charger that will work with this will be an iPhone "compatible" one, which will be sold at a premium.

Good luck charging that phone if you happen to forget your wireless charger at home (this has happened to me more times than I can count, and I had no problems with finding someone who could lend me their cord or charger) when you're going somewhere.

USB-C chargers are everywhere, and they are dirt cheap. How much do wireless chargers cost?

This comment was edited on Mar 18, 2025, 09:19.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 22:49:

Jivaro wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 22:31:
Still, for most users, this probably has zero impact on them except maybe that they will have to get wireless chargers in their cars eventually if they don't already have them.

That's gonna be a lot of people. Hell, even my now barely two-year-old truck doesn't have wireless charging in it. There's not even a place on the dash to put an aftermarket charger. It assumes you have a USB cable to plug in.

True. I use a wireless charger in the car because my old-ass 2016 Ford SUV has one usable USB port and when I plug the phone into it for some reason it doesn't charge if I am also using it to play music or for maps. The wireless charger is a workaround to the problem. It's made to sit in the cup holder and since I have an in-dash screen I don't need the phone at eye level, so that works fine. I think it was like 20 or 30-something bucks on Amazon, so at least it's comparable to buying a new charging cable in price. All of that sounds good and I would be a big fan but there is a bump in the road, the speed of charging. If I go on a long trip and am using a map app, listening to music, and maybe taking a call now and again....the battery will drain faster than the wireless charger can keep up on my iPhone 14. I think commuters will want charging options that keep up with their usage and I am not sure wireless charging is ready for prime time in that way. So I guess what I meant to say is that for one of the 3 models in each yearly iteration to rely on wireless charging is fine, maybe even something a segment of the market will want. If they do this to all of the models, I think that would be a mistake based on the current charging speeds.

This comment was edited on Mar 18, 2025, 03:37.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 22:49:
There's not even a place on the dash to put an aftermarket charger.

Whaaaaat?!? What the fuck kinda barbie girlie truck is that?!?!?

Dude. Any REAL manly truck you can store DOZENS OF CRATES of beer on the dash. And a pr0n mag collection. And a plush dinosaur. And that aftermarket charger. Easily.

Sheeeeeeeeshhhhhh...

Jivaro wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 22:31:
Still, for most users, this probably has zero impact on them except maybe that they will have to get wireless chargers in their cars eventually if they don't already have them.

That's gonna be a lot of people. Hell, even my now barely two year old truck doesn't have wireless charging in it. There's not even a place on the dash to put an aftermarket charger. It assumes you have a USB cable to plug in.

I charge a device in my back every day that uses the same wireless charging tech as an iPhone...so it's not having to use a wireless charger that would bother me. I just like having a port for things like output to a TV or monitor. I realize you can still do that wirelessly if the device supports Apple Airplay, but that is still an "if" on TVs and a "never" on monitors. If it was a move that was going to cut the cost of the phones that would be one thing, but we all know that isn't happening. Still, for most users, this probably has zero impact on them except maybe that they will have to get wireless chargers in their cars eventually if they don't already have them.

No thanks, i get enough radiation as it is

RogueSix wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 16:47:
I just bought muhself an iPhone 16e

I just bought muhself an iPhone 16e cuz I'm a cheap slut . As far as smartphones are concerned, I first had an iPhone 4, then the 2020 SE and now the 16e and I'm always amused how litle actually changes. Sure, the performance keeps going up but with my low ass requirements (messaging, Safari, banking, 2FA) it is barely even noticeable.

As a matter of fact, the 16e reminds me a ton of my good old iPhone 4 which I ran for... seven years or so. The 16e is pretty bulky and heavy like the 4 while the 2020 SE was much slimmer and lighter.

That said, the 2020 SE had a pretty terrible battery life even for my light use case. I had to recharge that phone every 24h to 48h at the latest. The 16e battery has so far lasted for eight days and six days. I have only had to charge it twice since I got it.

Personally, I definitely prefer a slightly bulkier and heavier phone if it means a much improved battery life. So far, I'm a very happy camper with the 16e and glad I made the switch. Generally, I don't quite get the long-winded debates. Most of the design differences are just nuances imo (round egdes, edgy rounds, notch this, notch that, action button left, right or center blah, bleh, blub).

iPhone 4, iPhone 2020 SE, iPhone 16e... meh, it's an iPhone alright. Same shit, slightly different buttons/layout but who really gives a fuck? Not me.
Only thing I care about is that my phone is somewhat compact. I want a phone, not a pocket tablet. That's why I used to love the 4.7" size factor but the 16e is still OK. With its 6.1" display, it is not as much bigger as one might think because it is bezel-free contrary to the 4.7" models. It is only marginally larger but, as stated above, quite a bit bulkier/heavier.

MacLeod wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 14:22:
What I don't understand with this "we need a phone as thick as a piece of paper!" mentality, is that the camera lenses will still stick out, even more so if the phones are thinner than now. Just look at that picture and you see how far the lens sticks out compared to the thickness. So if you want to protect your phone, you'll get a case, which will bulk up the areas around the rest of the phone to be as thick as where the lenses are. So why not just make the phone that thick, and you can add whatever you want inside... headphone jack, usb port, extra battery size?

Agreed on all counts.

They best be making that thing out of vibranium...

What I don't understand with this "we need a phone as thick as a piece of paper!" mentality, is that the camera lenses will still stick out, even more so if the phones are thinner than now. Just look at that picture and you see how far the lens sticks out compared to the thickness. So if you want to protect your phone, you'll get a case, which will bulk up the areas around the rest of the phone to be as thick as where the lenses are. So why not just make the phone that thick, and you can add whatever you want inside... headphone jack, usb port, extra battery size?

Simon Says wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 13:48:

gsilver wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 13:07:
One huge thing that's going to be a PITA without a port:
File transfers

Slower and more steps involved.

And to think that replacing the lightning port for USB-C on my old phone is the only reason why I'd be thinking of upgrading. Looks like I don't even need to if future generations don't have it.

While I find that race to the bottom of stupidity ( slimness at all costs ) completely baffling, I disagree with the file transfers. I've been doing through WIFI for almost a decade on a S7 and now S24, it's surprisingly faster than through USB.

Yeah, I had all my data transferred from my S21 to S25 with that SmartSwitch app or whatever it was called. It copied around 68gb over to the new phone in 20minutes... No cables involved. I was shocked.

gsilver wrote on Mar 17, 2025, 13:07:
One huge thing that's going to be a PITA without a port:
File transfers

Slower and more steps involved.

And to think that replacing the lightning port for USB-C on my old phone is the only reason why I'd be thinking of upgrading. Looks like I don't even need to if future generations don't have it.

While I find that race to the bottom of stupidity ( slimness at all costs ) completely baffling, I disagree with the file transfers. I've been doing through WIFI for almost a decade on a S7 and now S24, it's surprisingly faster than through USB.

One huge thing that's going to be a PITA without a port:
File transfers

Slower and more steps involved.

And to think that replacing the lightning port for USB-C on my old phone is the only reason why I'd be thinking of upgrading. Looks like I don't even need to if future generations don't have it.