Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't understand the issue with wireless mats? If you hate them being so visible you can easily install them under a desk surface with a bit of help from a router/chisel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
Cue the hysterical claims that it causes cancer or that folks are allergic to wireless charging/power.
I would hardly call being cautious "hysterical" , obviously any technology like this should involve research on health implications, you would be a total idiot not to do it.

Waves of power passing through the body doesn't exactly sound healthy, which is why thorough research needs to be done before it comes into consumers hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neodym and navaira
I'm curious if you are aware of anything existing that can so significantly increase the human lifetime?

I see a lot of stuff happening right now which should dramatically reduce the number of people dying by 2030.

1 - Self driving cars should put an end to the leading cause of accidental deaths in the US.
2 - Artificial replacements for body parts. Kidneys and hearts have completed animal trials and are expected to start human trials soon. Expected to hit the market by 2020. Other organs should follow over the next decade.
3 - CRISPR looks pretty promising for fixing your body rather than replacing pieces.
4 - Human brain cells were successfully grown in pietry dishes last year. It's expected to speed up the research of various brain issues and cures for them by between 10 and 100x the rate we were going before.

The list of ways we die has been shrinking over the past 200 years. So people have been living longer. We've now got it down to a list of ~5 things that still kill us, and I expect they'll all be taken care of within the next two decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mactendo
This is wildly off-topic but I'm pretty sure it will only be the richest 0.1% that will have a stab at immortality (Tim Cook forever!) if only because there are already way too many humans on Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mactendo
this will take a long time. way too many variables in terms of interference woth other equipment and also pets may be affected as well by this.
 
You can't exactly cancel out Microsoft based on rumors. Based on reality, it seems it might be Microsoft because of their constant push for wireless charging, their qi and PMA support on 950 and XL, their upcoming Surface Phone, etc.
 
I don't understand the issue with wireless mats? If you hate them being so visible you can easily install them under a desk surface with a bit of help from a router/chisel.

They still need to be plugged in.. I think that's the reason..

The only reason we don't use the same term for wireless access points its because we "know" they are a router, which do require power. But a mat that charges wireless devices, because the *only difference* is no cable is physically attached to the device being charged., but u still need lay on in something specific to charge.. like a mat

That to me, is not wireless anything for those reasons.

If a mat needs to be plugged in, i can live with that, but i cannot live with a device must be rested on some particular object TO charge if u are talking about wireless charging.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tycho24
They still need to be plugged in.. I think that's the reason..

The only reason we don't use the same term for wireless access points its because we "know" they are a router, which do require power. But a mat that charges wireless devices, because the *only difference* is no cable is physically attached to the device being charged., but u still need lay on in something specific to charge.. like a mat

That to me, is not wireless anything for those reasons.

If a mat needs to be plugged in, i can live with that, but i cannot live with a device must be rested on some particular object TO charge if u are talking about wireless charging.

Well long range wireless will stll need to be plugged in - it's not magically going to pull electricity from nothing.

The only difference seems to be where you have the 'emitter' - close by or not so close by. So what?
 
Well long range wireless will stll need to be plugged in - it's not magically going to pull electricity from nothing.

The only difference seems to be where you have the 'emitter' - close by or not so close by. So what?
-You can pick the phone up and use it while it's charging.

-You can set you phone down anywhere in the diameter of the recharger and it will charge, not on a specific spot.

It's not some magic bullet, but it's more freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tycho24
This is fantastic, but surely the phone will only be able to receive the technology - it'll be up to us to buy (Apple branded?) transmitters. I mean a transmitter big enough to make it so its not within a foot off the device looks to be pretty big so its not going to come with the iPhone and regardless id want this technology in all the rooms of my home and my office that I use most so I can go anywhere and have my devices constantly charging. Id be willing to throw a couple of £1000 into investing into that too, and having a wireless one that works throughout the car so you can have it in your pocket or just dropped into the centre console is perfect too.
[doublepost=1454849512][/doublepost]
I don't understand the issue with wireless mats? If you hate them being so visible you can easily install them under a desk surface with a bit of help from a router/chisel.

Oh come on, having to place your phone specifically in a 5cm x 5cm location where the mat is compared to having your phone in your pocket anywhere in one room and have it charge automatically as soon as you walk in? Its a massive difference and progress. Now install it in your car and most rooms in your house and you never plug in your phone again or worry having to put it down anywhere in particular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira
Now install it in your car and most rooms in your house and you never plug in your phone again or worry having to put it down anywhere in particular.
I have no clue whether this will prove to be actually possible, but if Apple come up with batteries that never need charging (and ideally expire after precisely two years...) they won't need to worry about "growth" for quite a while.
 
BlueTooth wireless headphones. That would eliminate one complaint about eliminating the 3.5mm jack, since they would rarely run out of power.
From a practical point of view, I agree. But focussing power to a location only millimetres away from my brain requires some confidence that they don't mis-focus.
 
From a practical point of view, I agree. But focussing power to a location only millimetres away from my brain requires some confidence that they don't mis-focus.

It doesn't work like that...
[doublepost=1454891435][/doublepost]
I would hardly call being cautious "hysterical" , obviously any technology like this should involve research on health implications, you would be a total idiot not to do it.

Waves of power passing through the body doesn't exactly sound healthy, which is why thorough research needs to be done before it comes into consumers hand.

There aren't "waves of power passing through the body" though, its RF, RF is already passing through your body ten fold right now.
 
From a practical point of view, I agree. But focussing power to a location only millimetres away from my brain requires some confidence that they don't mis-focus.

What??
Either you grossly misunderstand the technology or I do.
I believe there is a charging "field", & anything in that vicinity gets charged, NOT a highly concentrated "focused" beam of electricity shot at at a specific pinpointed small target.
 
What??
Either you grossly misunderstand the technology or I do.
I believe there is a charging "field", & anything in that vicinity gets charged, NOT a highly concentrated "focused" beam of electricity shot at at a specific pinpointed small target.
Maybe we are talking about different technology. There are companies that have proposed solving the range problem of wireless charging by focussing the energy on a specific location. Maybe that was a different company, I don't remember their name. And it is not a focussed beam (as in laser beam), it is really focussing on a specific location in space.
 
Imagine the applications when the power limit is increased. "Why would Apple build a TV?" Would be answered when you can wall mount one as easily as hanging a picture. No wires! That would make for a great on stage demo. Tim Cook could just walk out, drive a nail into a wall, hang a tv, and start watching a show and playing games. Maybe one day your Apple car will charge when you just have it parked in your garage or any other place that has wireless. A MacBook with no ports at all is only somewhat exciting but maybe there are implications I haven't thought of. Apple should buy these guys out right now.
 
From a practical point of view, I agree. But focussing power to a location only millimetres away from my brain requires some confidence that they don't mis-focus.

I don't believe this is how it would work. See this article.

http://gizmodo.com/these-unbelievable-cells-turn-wi-fi-signals-into-usable-1460796633

The existing wifi and cellular microwaves are capable of providing power now, without any special focusing. It's all energy which just needs to be converted to the right type to charge a battery, or power a device. Headphones use very little power as passive receivers and audio amplifiers, and have relatively tiny batteries which recharge quickly. So the same signal providing the streaming source could also power the device.

However, I was thinking more about when the device is not in use. Few people listen to music more than 5 hours straight which is the minimum for most wireless headphones. So the headphones charge while they're lying around waiting to be used again. The point is, either way they are almost always charged, resulting in very little downtime.
 
...but Apple executives have downplayed wireless charging in the past due to its dependence on built-in chips, mats, and close proximity. In a 2012 interview, Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller said it wasn't clear "how much convenience" magnetic induction and resonance wireless charging systems offered because they still need to be plugged into the wall.

Hey Phil, ever heard of how much more convenient and water resistant the Apple Watch is, because Apple made it charge inductively?

Not to mention that anyone who had a Palm Pre with their Touchstone inductive charger, knows how luxurious it felt to place the phone on its slanted face, which used magnets to hold it straight, and you could tell from the different colored notification lights what was going on from across the room.

There are companies that have proposed solving the range problem of wireless charging by focussing the energy on a specific location.

Neat. Each beam could come from a different direction, with low power, except where they intersected.

The existing wifi and cellular microwaves are capable of providing power now, without any special focusing. It's all energy which just needs to be converted to the right type to charge a battery, or power a device.

A lot of us here are old enough to remember as a kid building our first crystal AM radio kit, which had no battery. Instead, it used the received radio waves to power the headphones.
 
So how does this work? If it really "harvests" radio waves and converts it into DC, wouldn't the sender's power output be severely higher than that of other devices like routers and therefore potentially problematic for one's health?
Yes.

Also, it will be a reversed quadratic distance function to describe loss of energy when stepping further out of emitter.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.