Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nope. I pack a 30w Anker charging plug for my M1 MBA that is only slightly larger than the stock plug that used to come with the iPhone. As others have pointed out there are already comparable output plugs available from other notable brands that are half the size of this thing and offer multiple ports.
This is just Apple continuing its trash accessory game.
I was simply talking about the electrical engineering reason. You can trash Apple all you want, but the separation between high and low voltage is what matters as all manufactures have to deal with the same physics.
 
Haven't seen anyone mention this. My guess is this:

The reason that Fast Charging is available via MagSafe or Thunderbolt on the 14" is because it tops out at 100W or less (97ish?). Thunderbolt/USB-C can carry 100W or power. However, The 16" supports up to 140W (or at least over 100W), so the only way it's going to get it is with MagSafe.

If you use USB-C to USB-C with the 140W adapter, it'll top out at 100W or close to it. So that would be the distinction. If TB4 is updated or USB 4.x comes, and supports more, then that would change.

I'm guessing that's the distinction?
Yes. For now USB-C is limited to 100W.

Once an EPR USB-C cable exists, it’s very likely Apple will go to 140W fast charge on the USB-C ports as well. We already know the brick is PD 3.1. There just hasn’t been a cable other than Apple’s MagSafe cable that is EPR, which can carry 240W.

Source:
]
 
I was wondering the same thing. If this is GaN technology, why is it so big? Are they using an “older” variation of GaN technology (if such a variation exists).
The fact that all of the new chargers aren't using GaN is also a bit bewildering... Why only the 140W version? Especially if you're making a 67W that is new to the lineup as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dustman and msackey
GaN chargers aren't necessarily cool running. The couple I have (Hyper and Anker) get quite toasty when charging even one higher-powered device.
Is this specific to those brands? Would the same be true for Apple's chargers?
 
Is Anker UL Listed?

Some products are:

"Certified Safe: Anker’s MultiProtect safety system and UL certification ensures complete protection for you and your devices. Worldwide 100-240 volt AC input voltage."
 
So is it just for fast-charging that a Macbook touted as cooler and more efficient needs a brick 50% more powerful than the 2019 MBP 16?! Regardless, it feels like a letdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnnytravels
A charger of this level with only one USB-C port is a joke.
If it had 2 ports, then it couldn't deliver 140W to the Macbook Pro when 2 devices are plugged in and charging. I would guess the 16" MBPMax needs all the power it can get.

Multiple ports are convenient, but if you use more than one port, the wattage is split and lowers the max deliverable to a single port.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
This makes sense— Apple likely has higher safety requirements than companies like Anker and Hyper. If something goes wrong with their chargers on millions of devices, it’s a big deal…
Exactly. We all saw with the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 what happens when a big producer goes cutting edge on power/battery technology.
 
I want to know what the power draw is on the fully loaded 16” to not slide backwards on battery when plugged in to a different charger. My dock provides 87 watts of power delivery. Is the 140 watt brick to supply enough power for fast charging, or am I going to be forced to use the power brick in addition to my dock?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.