Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Five New Features Coming to Your iPhone With iOS 16.1 Later This Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The next thing will be "woke energy" charging 🤪
This article is about iOS, not iPadOS. But to answer your question...iPadOS 16 is coming later this month, and will be version 16.1.
Yeah of all the ones to allow deletion I really don't get this. I mean I guess it doesn't hurt to move as much as possible to deletable (looking at you Apple News on the Mac and Watch) but who has beef with Wallet?
Good thing they added the ability to use an app immediately before the in app stuff downloads. What would I do without this? Apple is definitely running out of ideas.
I’m perfectly content to let my iPhone be charged with dirty energy …
I think it's to appease regulators, who might claim that Apple forces users to use Wallet. By allowing it to be deleted, they can say "Nu-uh!"
(This, of course, is ridiculous; even if Wallet cannot be deleted, you're still not forced to use it. But regulators and common sense aren't always well acquainted).
Pretty much no reason for the one in settings now. There’s nothing there that you can’t get to from the Lock Screen.
I think the setup now is better than release. At least it doesn’t force you to go to the Home Screen setup after LS setup.
Now you can pick one or the other to customize and be done (16.1 beta).
Just because you don’t understand a feature, doesn’t mean it’s Orwellian.
There are already apps that indicate whether the energy in your region is green at any given time. For a company like Apple it’s a piece of cake to integrate this data in iOS to determine when to charge.
Virtue signaling would mean it doesn’t matter, which it does as this is about millions of phones.
Orwellian would mean it’s mandatory, an invasion of your privacy and controls your thoughts. Which it doesn’t.
I will probably turn it on. The big problem for me is, I don't have a fixed schedule. My work/sleep cycle is based on when the phone rings. I am as likely to be at the computer at 3:00am as 3:00pm.
I do currently have my AC system set to run the air when the power is mostly coming from wind and solar. There are a few times my house gets a bit stuffy. That is a very small price to pay.
Why would anyone delete a text? Just let it scroll on to oblivion. I can see if it is because the text could be incriminating. Please tell your wife and your girlfriends that I said hi.
I haven’t checked your math but what’s wrong with reducing your impact by 0,12%. We’re in a global state of emergency. And it doesn’t negatively impact your life in any way.
Why the hostility to make an impact?
And virtue signaling?? I’m sure 99,99% of iPhone users will not know about this feature.
Nothing is wrong with it. It just doesn't do any good. To be clear, you're not going to get a 0.12% reduction. That's the theoretical maximum. Realistically, it's going to be far lower than that. Check my math, and especially the caveats I spelled out, to see why.
As for virtue signaling, Apple is the one signaling: It's a feature that will have no impact on the environment whatsoever, but that still get to act like they're doing good.
Let me emphasize this further: Even if Apple came out with an iPhone that required no electricity at all, it still would make no difference. The math is still the same: The average iPhone user would reduce their electricity usage by 0.12% (assuming they fully recharge twice a day; the actual usage is probably lower than that, making the actual reduction smaller, as well).
So once again, there's nothing wrong with this feature, it just doesn't do what Apple wants you to think it does.
Wonder if Apple will make a solar panel to support clean energy charging.
It makes sense to do this with air conditioning. Not so much with a phone.
A 3.5 ton AC system runs at about 3,500W. Meaning in about 15 seconds, it uses as much energy as it takes to fully charge an iPhone.
Shifting AC run time to non-peak time, or to times when solar or wind are abundant, makes a difference. Shifting when you charge your iPhone doesn't.
If this still doesn't register, imagine someone saying, "If everyone would just run their AC 15 seconds less each day, we'd radically reduce pollution!" I at least hope you'd look at that person skeptically and realize that can't possibly be true.
I will...and Oh btw...your mom says "Hi"
I don't think you understand how this works. Your phone will still be charged so it doesn't "save" any energy. It just looks at the moment when a lot of dirty energy is produced (typically during rush hours) and will avoid charging phones at that exact time.
If enough of an energy reduction is achieved at a given time, less energy needs to be produced and eventually one less power plant needs to run.
Obviously, the chance of this happening by merely looking at the consumption of a phone is limited.
But that’s similar to saying "I will still take the plane, because even if I don't buy a seat, that plane will still fly". Which is obviously flawed reasoning. You have to look at the macro scale. And then we have to also look at the bigger picture for Apple: iPads, Macbooks and ... cars. Imagine the next CarPlay will enable this feature to charge your electric car.
Do you get it now? So stop thinking so small, and let Apple do its thing.
Last edited:
Per person.
So, if every current member sent me one dollar, ($1.00). Just one dollar. One hundred pennies. Most people probably wouldn't even miss it, and for those that will, apologies. But one dollar? I would have $1,087,712! It adds up.
Saving $0.12 per person, with what, 10,000,000 users? That's $1,200,000! For your twelve cents. The point is, it all adds up. Like doing nothing is adding up. And people have been doing nothing about it for decades across so many devices/vehicles. It's looking like climate change is going to have a major effect on the planet in MY lifetime. If you are younger than me, and it's likely that way more than half the population is, it's going to have a major effect on a lot more of their lives. But yeah, let's do nothing, because its easier.
I understand it's purpose, but do you understand that the maximum possible benefit it could have is about 1/10th of one percent, and the actual benefit is even smaller than that? I'm not just looking at one phone: I'm looking at all phones. Even if everyone enabled this setting on their phone, it will still make no difference. The planet will not notice 1/10% reduction in energy usage.
If every one of the 120 million iPhone user in the United States shifted to off-peak charging, that would reduce annual energy consumption by 1.4 GWh. That sounds impressive, right? But that's 1.4 GWh compared to a total of 4,116,000 GWh total annual electrical production. That makes my 0.1% reduction estimate way, way too high.
You say that oh it's just a phone, but what if this happened with an electric car (BTW, electric cars already do this). In other words, a phone is insignificant while other devices would make an actual difference. Which is exactly my point.
Do you get it now?
If we did run our AC 15 seconds less a day, it would make a difference. That difference would be very small, but it would be a difference. Fifteen seconds here, 10 seconds there, after a while, that's 25 seconds or even more! (Joke aside, if you take all the trivial things each day and add them up, they total up to quite a bit.
Not just per person. It's still 0.12% in aggregate, at best.
If you have a 1,000 employee company, and give each person a 5% raise, did your payroll go up by 5,000%? Of course not! It went up by 5%.
Your $1 analogy is flawed, as in it, you receive the concentrated benefits of the members' dispersed costs. The reduced emissions coming from everyone making a 0.12% are concentrated in a single town; they would be dispersed across the entire country (or planet, if you prefer). You will not notice!
Likewise, you would not notice if the US GDP went up by $1,087,712; that works out to one cent for a family of three. That family won't notice it, the country won't notice it. Aggregating doesn't change this simple fact.
I'm not saying do nothing; I'm saying do things that actually make a difference (for example, as I mentioned before, shut off or turn down your AC, or charge your electric vehicle at off peak times).
If you truly believe that the problem with the environment is that we have 0.12% too much energy consumption, then by all means, charge your phone off-peak and pride yourself on saving the planet.
But in the time that you and I have spent arguing about this, either one of use could have made a greater contribution.
You're right; if everyone of us could simply do the equivalent of clean charging 417 iPhones each day, we'd cut our energy usage in half!
Or, clean charge your phone, turn off the light in the hallway when you are not using it, open the shades on windows in the winter, close them in the summer, don't keep the door to the fridge open any longer than you must, walk the block over to 7-11 instead of driving... All the little things that add up.