PDA

View Full Version : Charge Time on New iPad Significantly Increased with Larger Battery




MacRumors
Mar 15, 2012, 11:00 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/15/charge-time-on-new-ipad-significantly-increased-with-larger-battery/)


One interesting note on the new iPad revealed in TechCrunch's review (http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/14/the-new-ipad-review/) is the observation that charging time has increased significantly over previous models. While the increase is not necessarily a surprise given the significant 70% boost in battery capacity from 25 watt-hours in the iPad 2 to 42.5 watt-hours in the new iPad, it is an issue that many users may not have considered.It appears that they've had a fairly major breakthrough in their battery technology. While the new battery clearly isn't much bigger than the old one, it can hold much more juice (42 watt-hours versus 25-watt-hours). The downside of this is that I've found it takes quite a bit longer to charge the new iPad. As in several hours -- you'll probably want to do it overnight.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/03/ipad_3_logic_board_battery.jpg


Logic board and battery of new iPad (Source: iFixit teardown (http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-3-4G-Teardown/8277/1))
The increased battery capacity is undoubtedly being used to power such enhanced components as the Retina display and LTE networking technology, while also maintaining the same battery life (10 hours on Wi-Fi, 9 hours on cellular data) of the previous iPad.

TechCrunch also notes that the increased power of the new iPad also seems to manifest itself in the device becoming "noticeably warm" in the lower left corner, something that had not been observed to such a degree in earlier models.

Article Link: Charge Time on New iPad Significantly Increased with Larger Battery (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/15/charge-time-on-new-ipad-significantly-increased-with-larger-battery/)



Menopause
Mar 15, 2012, 11:03 AM
That's quite understandable and IMO a small trade-off compared to what we're getting in return. I'll just charge it overnight :)

GunZi
Mar 15, 2012, 11:05 AM
Considering it has the retina display and the boost in graphics, i don't mind charging it longer. :)

GeekLawyer
Mar 15, 2012, 11:05 AM
TechCrunch also notes that the increased power of the new iPad also seems to manifest itself in the device becoming "noticeably warm" in the lower left corner, something that had not been observed to such a degree in earlier models.I believe I read in one of the other reviews that this heating in the lower left corner was related to LTE use...

No surprise that a "larger" battery takes longer to charge.

macduke
Mar 15, 2012, 11:10 AM
This is actually a legitimate issue. I've always considered the iPad to be fairly slow at charging. Adding several hours on top of that is not good for people on the go—but it's not the end of the world either. I usually charge my iPad overnight anyway—but when I forget to, even if I realize a couple hours before class, I would be out of luck now? Good thing I graduate in May. Office charging!

Nailedtothex
Mar 15, 2012, 11:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

What doesn't make sense to me though is if the battery power increased by 70%, how is it that the timing in the wifi only mode is still only the same as before?? The display, and not the 4G, must be the real power hog here...

dongler
Mar 15, 2012, 11:14 AM
Seems like the iPad is going to have to move to using MagSafe for charging, and ship with the same power supply as the Air. Of course, they could still let you charge over USB if you needed to.

It seems inevitable given that the new iPad battery is larger than the one in the 11" Air (40W/hr vs 35W/hr)

macduke
Mar 15, 2012, 11:18 AM
For all the advancements we make in technology, it seems that battery tech is always lagging behind. There are constantly new articles about amazing new battery tech being developed at XYZ Super University and it never happens.

Sure it's cool that they pumped this much juice into a battery not much physically larger than the old one—but I read about 7 years ago about how we would have laptop batteries that lasted for a month and took 15 minutes to charge that were being developed at MIT or someplace like that. I understand that they were probably being optimistic, but we're not even a little bit close to that today. What gives scientists? Oh—some law of nature? Well then, in that case you can stop getting my hopes up. Oh—you were bending the truth to secure additional funding? You sneaky scientists.

justinfreid
Mar 15, 2012, 11:26 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

So retrofitting an iPad 2 with this new battery tech would yield how many hours on WiFi?

Menel
Mar 15, 2012, 11:30 AM
For all the advancements we make in technology, it seems that battery tech is always lagging behind. There are constantly new articles about amazing new battery tech being developed at XYZ Super University and it never happens.

Sure it's cool that they pumped this much juice into a battery not much physically larger than the old one—but I read about 7 years ago about how we would have laptop batteries that lasted for a month and took 15 minutes to charge that were being developed at MIT or someplace like that. I understand that they were probably being optimistic, but we're not even a little bit close to that today. What gives scientists? Oh—some law of nature? Well then, in that case you can stop getting my hopes up. Oh—you were bending the truth to secure additional funding? You sneaky scientists.

In a year, they increased batt. capacity in same volume 70%? That's very significant advancement.

Link this 7 year old article you reminisce over.

----------

wirelessly posted (mozilla/5.0 (iphone; cpu iphone os 5_0 like mac os x) applewebkit/534.46 (khtml, like gecko) version/5.1 mobile/9a334 safari/7534.48.3)

so retrofitting an ipad 2 with this new battery tech would yield how many hours on wifi?~ +70%

bacaramac
Mar 15, 2012, 11:30 AM
I don't travel with my iPad so I don't see this as an issue. I am guessing the Display is the true reason or the Wi-Fi model would have more use time on it. LTE is probably a drop in the hat compared to the Display.

I always charge my iPad using the 10W adapter and not USB on my iMac. Wonder what the charge time is using the 10W vs. iMac USB.

cameronjpu
Mar 15, 2012, 11:32 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

What doesn't make sense to me though is if the battery power increased by 70%, how is it that the timing in the wifi only mode is still only the same as before?? The display, and not the 4G, must be the real power hog here...

No surprise there. And the RAM.

Menopause
Mar 15, 2012, 11:37 AM
For all the advancements we make in technology, it seems that battery tech is always lagging behind. There are constantly new articles about amazing new battery tech being developed at XYZ Super University and it never happens.

Sure it's cool that they pumped this much juice into a battery not much physically larger than the old one—but I read about 7 years ago about how we would have laptop batteries that lasted for a month and took 15 minutes to charge that were being developed at MIT or someplace like that. I understand that they were probably being optimistic, but we're not even a little bit close to that today. What gives scientists? Oh—some law of nature? Well then, in that case you can stop getting my hopes up. Oh—you were bending the truth to secure additional funding? You sneaky scientists.

The last line of your first paragraph contradicts the first line of your last paragraph. Why the rant? Why calling "scientists" names? "MIT or someplace like that"? With all due respect I find this quite bland and juvenile.

Advance in science doesn't mean it could immediately and effortlessly be implemented in (consumer) technology, simultaneously meeting economic and environmental requirements.

When it does, the product is something like 170% charge holding capacity in a battery of the same dimensions as the yesteryears. It's here today and frankly, I find it fascinating. But since you hardly appreciate it, I don't think any amount of advancement in technology at any given point of time will ever satisfy you. The day your '1 month long / 15 minutes charging' battery finally comes, I'm certain I'll find you blaming scientists for not having invented 'a year long battery with 10 minutes charging'.

Mac Eagle
Mar 15, 2012, 11:37 AM
Wouldn't this also mean that listening to music on this thing, with the display off, would last a really long time?

Eminemdrdre00
Mar 15, 2012, 11:40 AM
Imagine if they put this battery in the iPad 2! The battery life would be insane.

Nailedtothex
Mar 15, 2012, 11:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

I wonder - there were rumors or the iPad 2 having retina last year, but with this kind of power consumption, and a 25 whr battery, it wouldn't have gone over well to have 5hrs battery time... Although I'm sure they hade production difficulties too

notjustjay
Mar 15, 2012, 11:48 AM
I'm wondering if this improvement in battery technology will work its way over to other products. Maybe the MacBook Air will also have super-long battery life.

Unless of course the next MacBook Air also has a retina display :)

newdeal
Mar 15, 2012, 11:48 AM
Well I guess we know now that the only way to get a high res retina like display in a macbook pro is to ditch the superdrive so it can be replaced by more battery and that there is no way they could do it in the air. Guess we can apples 2012 roadmap

iapplelove
Mar 15, 2012, 12:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

This isn't an issue for me at all.. And if I can go a few days between charges like my ipad2 then over night charging will be the way to go again

vrDrew
Mar 15, 2012, 12:03 PM
Engineering is about compromises. Good engineering is picking the right things to compromise on.

I'm going to withhold judgement on both the recharge time and case "warmth" till I've had it in my (sweaty?) hands for a while. If history is any guide, Apple will have erred on the right side.

Regarding the recharge time, I think the key measure isn't going to be how long it takes to get battery state up to 100%. (It always takes a long time to get those last few milliamp hours into the battery.) Its going to be how long it takes to get it from ~5% to 50%. IOW, "almost outta gas" to "enough juice to get me through the day."

ArcaneDevice
Mar 15, 2012, 12:06 PM
For all the advancements we make in technology, it seems that battery tech is always lagging behind. There are constantly new articles about amazing new battery tech being developed at XYZ Super University and it never happens.

Yup. Creating new and ever increasingly super powerful mobile gizmos each year is becoming a wall that the tech world is going to hit sooner rather than later.

It's as if all the auto world just ignored the price and availability of oil and continued to build bigger and bigger engines just so they could go faster, with no regard to how much fuel they use.

There just isn't enough interest or investment in portable power. Batteries are just not as sexy as flashy graphics or shiny materials and that's going to be the anchor that holds the world back.

I've said it before. Apple needs to spend it's money acquiring cutting-edge battery research. If they could push development forward in a huge leap that would benefit everyone. Not just Apple products.

An iPad that charges once a week and has a run time of 48 hours? That would be something.

charlituna
Mar 15, 2012, 12:07 PM
What kind of a charge are we talking about. ARe they saying several hours to go for 0 to 100% or just say 50 to 100%. And define 'several' that could be anything over 2 (which is generally said as 'a couple'). Are we talking 3, 5, 8, 10, 24.


Remember not everyone is going to drain the battery every day. It takes about 3 hours for my original iPad to go from empty to full (2 hours for my iPad 2) if they are asleep or off and on the wall charger. I would say with 70% more battery power to actually recharge going from 0-100% in 4-5 hours isn't that insane.

acslater017
Mar 15, 2012, 12:24 PM
While it might be a slight inconvenience, it's a tradeoff I'm glad they made (as well as the extra 0.6 mm and 50 g). The Retina display and 4G/LTE seem well worth it. A 70% increase in battery capacity is an impressive feat.

I wonder if they will similarly cram some amazing battery into the next iPhone? :cool:

Buildbright
Mar 15, 2012, 12:44 PM
What kind of a charge are we talking about. ARe they saying several hours to go for 0 to 100% or just say 50 to 100%. And define 'several' that could be anything over 2 (which is generally said as 'a couple'). Are we talking 3, 5, 8, 10, 24.


Remember not everyone is going to drain the battery every day. It takes about 3 hours for my original iPad to go from empty to full (2 hours for my iPad 2) if they are asleep or off and on the wall charger. I would say with 70% more battery power to actually recharge going from 0-100% in 4-5 hours isn't that insane.

I have never seen an iPad 2 charge that fast.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1120125

Mine takes four hours. The new may take 6 to 8 hours. That is nuts.

Jugney
Mar 15, 2012, 12:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

What doesn't make sense to me though is if the battery power increased by 70%, how is it that the timing in the wifi only mode is still only the same as before?? The display, and not the 4G, must be the real power hog here...

I've been wondering something similar - does the Wi-Fi only model have the same monster battery as the 4G model? It would be killer to get 10 hours plus a few more with the WiFi only model. But with all the new components - cameras, display, etc - it seems the costs of the iPad have really gone up, and saving on the Wi-Fi only battery would help offset that. Wondering what the teardowns will reveal...

Dowjohnny
Mar 15, 2012, 01:01 PM
but I read about 7 years ago about how we would have laptop batteries that lasted for a month and took 15 minutes to charge that were being developed at MIT or someplace like that.

they exist, but an iPad with that technology would cost like 100.000 Dollar and weigh a ton

macduke
Mar 15, 2012, 01:58 PM
In a year, they increased batt. capacity in same volume 70%? That's very significant advancement.

Link this 7 year old article you reminisce over.

----------

~ +70%

Ok, so I was slightly off—it's only 6 years old. In addition it wasn't 15 minute charging, it was only a few seconds: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392803

It seems it has more to do with nano technology lagging behind and not taking off as rapidly as we had hoped it would. Economies of scale are not kicking in for this tech quite yet.

Here is another one about 10 minute car battery charging (also from MIT): http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/17/mit-researchers-invent-new-hybrid-car-battery/

You can literally go on for days reading about all these batteries that haven't panned out. Everything from those nano tubes, to new metals, to fuel cells, to using viruses and other biological materials to create crazy new batteries that just about power themselves. But you hardly see them hitting the market.



The last line of your first paragraph contradicts the first line of your last paragraph. Why the rant? Why calling "scientists" names? "MIT or someplace like that"? With all due respect I find this quite bland and juvenile.

Advance in science doesn't mean it could immediately and effortlessly be implemented in (consumer) technology, simultaneously meeting economic and environmental requirements.

When it does, the product is something like 170% charge holding capacity in a battery of the same dimensions as the yesteryears. It's here today and frankly, I find it fascinating. But since you hardly appreciate it, I don't think any amount of advancement in technology at any given point of time will ever satisfy you. The day your '1 month long / 15 minutes charging' battery finally comes, I'm certain I'll find you blaming scientists for not having invented 'a year long battery with 10 minutes charging'.

Juvenile would be picking fights with someone on the internet. You seem to know so much about me, such as what would satisfy my apparent bloodlust for the battery industry. I was simply making an observation. My original comment was light-hearted and good-natured. I never called scientists any names. Near the end I was joking about how they are often at odds when trying to receive funding. Sir or Madam, I suggest you take everyday conversations on the internet a little less serious.

Yes, "MIT or someplace like that"—that's exactly where it was. In reality MIT seems quite involved with new battery science and research. It's quite fine if you think MIT is bland, but I was not picking a name out of thin air that I've heard of before to try to sound smart on the internet. See the above links and read them. It's ridiculous that I have to go find an article from 6 years ago to prove a point. Lighten up—and think next time before posting. It might keep you from being embarrassed again :)

This is the primary reason I don't post on here as much any more. So many new members have joined since the iPad became popular. Many of them are an insult to basic human intellect.

Xtremehkr
Mar 15, 2012, 02:48 PM
This technology definitely needs to go into the iPhone. The battery life in iPhones is very weak, especially in the 4S.

garylapointe
Mar 15, 2012, 03:59 PM
An iPad that charges once a week and has a run time of 48 hours? That would be something.
I'd rather have a significantly lighter device that has a run time of 8-10 hours (but have to charge it daily).

Gary

blybug
Mar 15, 2012, 04:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

Exactly my initial thought. Would be nice if the 16GB iPad 2 still for sale got this little upgrade.

bse3
Mar 15, 2012, 04:25 PM
While the new battery clearly isn’t much bigger than the old one
This is what techcrunch wrote. Though, they are referring to an article at zdnet, wich says:

it’s highly unlikely that the battery is significantly bigger
What the **** is wrong with people?

ars technica writes:
Earlier speculation suggested that Apple had somehow significantly improved on the power density of the cells, but our calculations show otherwise

ArcaneDevice
Mar 15, 2012, 05:56 PM
I'd rather have a significantly lighter device that has a run time of 8-10 hours (but have to charge it daily).

Gary

You are missing the big picture. The answer is not to pack a hundred cells into a device.

The answer is to redefine the technology used to make batteries.

The basics of LiPo and NiMh rechargeable batteries hasn't changed in 30 years and the NiCd has been around 100 years.

Menopause
Mar 15, 2012, 06:56 PM
Ok, so I was slightly off—it's only 6 years old. In addition it wasn't 15 minute charging, it was only a few seconds: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392803

It seems it has more to do with nano technology lagging behind and not taking off as rapidly as we had hoped it would. Economies of scale are not kicking in for this tech quite yet.

Here is another one about 10 minute car battery charging (also from MIT): http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/17/mit-researchers-invent-new-hybrid-car-battery/

You can literally go on for days reading about all these batteries that haven't panned out. Everything from those nano tubes, to new metals, to fuel cells, to using viruses and other biological materials to create crazy new batteries that just about power themselves. But you hardly see them hitting the market.





Juvenile would be picking fights with someone on the internet. You seem to know so much about me, such as what would satisfy my apparent bloodlust for the battery industry. I was simply making an observation. My original comment was light-hearted and good-natured. I never called scientists any names. Near the end I was joking about how they are often at odds when trying to receive funding. Sir or Madam, I suggest you take everyday conversations on the internet a little less serious.

Yes, "MIT or someplace like that"—that's exactly where it was. In reality MIT seems quite involved with new battery science and research. It's quite fine if you think MIT is bland, but I was not picking a name out of thin air that I've heard of before to try to sound smart on the internet. See the above links and read them. It's ridiculous that I have to go find an article from 6 years ago to prove a point. Lighten up—and think next time before posting. It might keep you from being embarrassed again :)

This is the primary reason I don't post on here as much any more. So many new members have joined since the iPad became popular. Many of them are an insult to basic human intellect.

My intellect? LOL, you're talking like this forum is your father's property! :D If you had a reason not to post here, why are you now? You having joined earlier than others doesn't certify you as a very cultured and literate gentleman. I've seen this arrogant "pride" among quite a few 'veterans' here: it's mediocre.

I didn't mean MIT was bland, I merely suggested that you don't even seem to know concretely where the technology you're referring to originated, who the people that invented it are, what the current status of its research is and so on. Instead, you just want to do one thing: rant. Light heartedly or otherwise. Empty pots always make the most noise.

Complaining like an unappreciative school girl and then acting adept and sophisticated with big boy words — I've seen plenty of you :) I didn't mean any offense to begin with and I still don't, I just suggested that you could show a little more recognition towards what you're already getting. But please, carry on. The homework won't do itself.

Eriamjh1138@DAN
Mar 16, 2012, 06:22 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Duh! Of course it takes longer to charge! If it is 70% larger in Watt-hours I will take 70% longer to charge. It's called physics. Apple could design bigger chargers that charge faster but that's not their priority.

The battery is also physically bigger and heavier than the ipad2's.

wilsonlaidlaw
Mar 16, 2012, 11:38 AM
Until reading this post and the allied thread, I thought that there was a fault on my iPad 3 or Dexia Green cable. I changed chargers from an old 10W one for my iPad 1 to the one that came with the iPad 3, just to make sure that was not an issue. It did not seem to be charging at all via USB and after 15 minutes on the charger, has gone up a single percent. At this rate, it is going to be a 12+ hour charge from say 40% (where I usually end up at the day's finish) to full. My iPad 1 charged from that to full in about 3 to 4 hours. It may be that the battery is still in the process of forming and subsequent charges will be quicker. I think that Apple needed to bring out a quicker charger - say 20 or 25 watts.

Wilson

Designx
Mar 17, 2012, 07:03 PM
Until reading this post and the allied thread, I thought that there was a fault on my iPad 3 or Dexia Green cable. I changed chargers from an old 10W one for my iPad 1 to the one that came with the iPad 3, just to make sure that was not an issue. It did not seem to be charging at all via USB and after 15 minutes on the charger, has gone up a single percent. At this rate, it is going to be a 12+ hour charge from say 40% (where I usually end up at the day's finish) to full. My iPad 1 charged from that to full in about 3 to 4 hours. It may be that the battery is still in the process of forming and subsequent charges will be quicker. I think that Apple needed to bring out a quicker charger - say 20 or 25 watts.

Wilson

Have you tried to charge the 4th gen ipod touch on the 10W iPad charger? Must take 15 - 20 minutes for a full charge! A bigger charger would help the new iPad so I wonder if there are aftermarket USB chargers with a higher charge rating.

wilsonlaidlaw
Mar 17, 2012, 07:15 PM
Have you tried to charge the 4th gen ipod touch on the 10W iPad charger? Must take 15 - 20 minutes for a full charge! A bigger charger would help the new iPad so I wonder if there are aftermarket USB chargers with a higher charge rating.

I have a pair of iPhone 3's (UK and France) that charge up very quickly on the 10W charger (what a stupid idea making the 5W and 10W chargers identical). I have put Dymo tape labels on my 5 and 10W chargers, so I don't mix them up. It may be that the 30 pin connector can only handle 2 amps (10W), in which case a higher wattage charger might damage it.

Smug Boy
Mar 18, 2012, 09:32 AM
Does this mean that the iPad 4 will have the same battery life but be lighter and charge in half the time of the iPad 3?

JAT
Mar 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Duh! Of course it takes longer to charge! If it is 70% larger in Watt-hours I will take 70% longer to charge. It's called physics. Apple could design bigger chargers that charge faster but that's not their priority.

The battery is also physically bigger and heavier than the ipad2's.

Maybe Cook should walk over to Tesla and see if they can license the Supercharger tech. Although it might take a couple years to engineer that down to a level a tablet could handle.

macduke
Mar 27, 2012, 07:03 PM
the product is something like 170% charge holding capacity in a battery of the same dimensions as the yesteryears. It's here today and frankly, I find it fascinating. But since you hardly appreciate it, I don't think any amount of advancement in technology at any given point of time will ever satisfy you.

Funny how I again come back to this comment after looking through my quote notifications to see how enormously wrong you turned out to be. No magic or increases in tech to be found. Just the same old tech—slow to charge, poor at dissipating heat. Furthermore my original rant about battery technology has turned out to have merit, although it has been somewhat blown out of proportion by the media.

What it boils down to is you're just a troll who can't admit when they're wrong. Need proof of your trolling? BOOM:

Instead, you just want to do one thing: rant. Light heartedly or otherwise. Empty pots always make the most noise.

Complaining like an unappreciative school girl and then acting adept and sophisticated with big boy words — I've seen plenty of you :) I didn't mean any offense to begin with and I still don't, I just suggested that you could show a little more recognition towards what you're already getting. But please, carry on. The homework won't do itself.

That is trolling to the max. And you thought my original post was just noise filling the forum? Let's take a good hard look at your recent gems:

Indoor swimming pools for all employees to swim in ca$h!!! :eek:

On a serious note, competitors beware. $100 bn is a LOT.

Come, join hands, let's call this Bandwidthgate and forward it to Gizmodo to blow it out of proportions.

Good riddance to these maggots.

bwahahaha

What a monumentally useful comment! *claps and applauses*!

But go ahead thinking that your comments are adding so much to this forum that you've been a member of for all of one month. I'll be doing real work—like designing website and application interfaces using primarily Apple hardware. So while I'm a huge Apple fan, I feel like the amount of time and money I have invested in their products gives me the right to voice a potential concern every now and then. But even then in the OP, my concern wasn't with Apple, but with the battery industry as a whole.

Menopause
Mar 27, 2012, 10:37 PM
Funny how I again come back to this comment after looking through my quote notifications to see how enormously wrong you turned out to be. No magic or increases in tech to be found. Just the same old tech—slow to charge, poor at dissipating heat. Furthermore my original rant about battery technology has turned out to have merit, although it has been somewhat blown out of proportion by the media.

What it boils down to is you're just a troll who can't admit when they're wrong. Need proof of your trolling? BOOM:



That is trolling to the max. And you thought my original post was just noise filling the forum? Let's take a good hard look at your recent gems:











But go ahead thinking that your comments are adding so much to this forum that you've been a member of for all of one month. I'll be doing real work—like designing website and application interfaces using primarily Apple hardware. So while I'm a huge Apple fan, I feel like the amount of time and money I have invested in their products gives me the right to voice a potential concern every now and then. But even then in the OP, my concern wasn't with Apple, but with the battery industry as a whole.

These aren't the ONLY comments I wrote here but boy oh boy you're a real nut job! I'm not even gonna read whatever crap you wrote because frankly I don't give a flying rat's hairy ass about 13 year olds whining and then getting offended on the internet. Just do me a favor and stop being a freaky stalker, okay? :eek:

macduke
Mar 29, 2012, 03:31 PM
These aren't the ONLY comments I wrote here but boy oh boy you're a real nut job! I'm not even gonna read whatever crap you wrote because frankly I don't give a flying rat's hairy ass about 13 year olds whining and then getting offended on the internet. Just do me a favor and stop being a freaky stalker, okay? :eek:

Nut job? I didn't start the flaming on the internet. 13? You've got to be kidding me. At this point, I honestly believe it's the other way around. Stalking? It's called click on your name, view more posts. Copy paste. Takes 30 seconds—and was only done because you first called the validity of my own comments into question. But being a forum newbie I doubt you realize how easy that is to look up. And yes—those were the majority of your comments since this thread. Useless tripe from a mindless buffoon. Don't take offense just because I pointed out that you're a troll. Oh wait, that's exactly how a troll would react. "NA NA NA NOT GONNA READ YOUR RESPONSE BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS RIGHT NA NA NA" Grow up, fool. If you can't take criticism, then you shouldn't criticize others. As for me, I fell for it and fed the troll. You'll see no more responses from me, and I will never revisit this thread.

keesd
May 20, 2012, 03:26 PM
I feel the pain guys, charging the new iPad takes a considerable amount of time. I hope Apple considers reducing the power usage of the iPad 4, so that I don't have to charge it every day. I'm organizing a list of tricks to optimize the charging time here (http://tech-hacks.net/tech/apple/103/how-to-charge-the-new-ipad-faster/). I hope it is useful for some of you.

I have to say though that because of the properties of the battery, charging it until 40% takes considerably less time than charging it fully, which probably has something to do with the properties of the LiOn battery that the iPad has. It has to be said that for the health of the battery, it is smart to charge it 100% and let it drain 100% from time to time. This way the battery will last longer :).

shinobi-81
May 20, 2012, 04:24 PM
These aren't the ONLY comments I wrote here but boy oh boy you're a real nut job! I'm not even gonna read whatever crap you wrote because frankly I don't give a flying rat's hairy ass about 13 year olds whining and then getting offended on the internet. Just do me a favor and stop being a freaky stalker, okay? :eek:

It feels good to lash out on random people, doesn't it?