Oh, please great and wise medium, enlighten me. And don't tell me about the NOVA episode you watched at the beginning of the month about the search for super batteries, because news flash, that technology is still very much in development and isn't available for mass production in any form yet. Got anything better?
So two devices out of maybe tens of millions is a "trend"? Some devices being older devices?
Exactly! Maybe it's just me, but if something's on fire... put it out! If there is a tornado approaching... take cover! So often we see any geek with a cell phone putting themselves in danger. And worse, making inane comments during the process.But you are TheRealTVGuy!
You would better serve yourself by being less snarky and presumptuous when starting a conversation.
And these technologies are widely available at about the same cost and can be used as basically direct equivalents of what's in use today? What companies are using them on a wide scale?
I read the article. It describes technology that was, again, in research stages in 2007. You know what else was in research stages in 2007? Liquid-cell lithium-ion batteries with the same energy density as solid-cell. "It'll revolutionize electric cars" they told us. Unfortunately that research never panned out. I have found no evidence that the research discussed in this article faired any better.
Solid state li-ion batteries based on garnet-type fast li+ conductors, unlike conventional ones, consist entirely of solid chemical compounds and are non-flammable.
So basically this "new" technology isn't really used in the industry and on a mass scale so far and Apple is basically using what is the standard and is available in a mass scale in the industry.
Right on, I agree with ya, yeh, they're using sh#t, Apple is not forward thinking in any respect.
They should definitely be using all that magical unobtainum.
Okay, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Any article that references a technology that is still in a research phase automatically doesn't count. Those technologies are not available for companies like Apple and Samsung to actually use. They're still experimental, and as you said, the fact that ten years on the industry hasn't moved much means there might just be more to making a product work once in a lab versus making it work every time in millions of cell phones.
The 3.5" floppy disk was not available for use, but at the time, Apple worked with the manufacturers and made that technology available in their Macs. Likewise Apple turned to unused microdrive hard drives for their original iPods bringing them to market.
As a side note, I sent you a direct message recently, would you mind reading it and replying please?
The 3.5" floppy disk was already available, having been standardized on in 1982 by a consortium of disk makers. That's no doubt why Apple chose it: they knew there'd be a steady supply in the future.
Apple wasn't the first to use a microdrive on an MP3 player.
You have not provided and I have been unable to find evidence of any currently production-ready battery technologies that are an improvement on the li-ion cells used by both Samsung and Apple (and every other small device manufacturer on earth). All you have are your assertions and an insistence that anything that has worked once in a lab is instantly ready for large scale mass production.
Fact is new technology is here right now. You refuse to acknowledge it, that's your prerogative. Truth hurts sometimes especially when it disrupts the status quo.
Thanks for the history and correction.
I cannot sigh deeply enough for this. You have produced no evidence of a single battery technology that is available for production that Apple or Samsung aren't using. You have also demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of how research works. By your logic, all cars should be built from carbon nanotubes and any manufacturer not using them is a disgrace. Your responses amounts to nothing more than smoke. You are mistaken. Good day.
[doublepost=1489440010][/doublepost]Re
Reread those links I provided please. Safer battery tech way back in 2007. I understand exactly how research works, just as much as I understand motivations not to embrace and develop technologies that are available when shareholders are involved.