Here's How Fast USB-C Ports Are on iPads and Macs Ahead of iPhone 15

[3530025]

Inductive wireless charging by design requires perfect alignment and electromagnetic field isn’t too far from each other For the induction to work. Nothing much can be helped here unfortunately. Higher efficiency require major breakthrough in room-temperature superconductor material to drastically lower the amount of energy waste happening while the conductor is working. There has been some news articles talking about it, tho peer review is still ongoing.

Yet again another confirmation of my initial Physics 101 post which this post https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...macs-ahead-of-iphone-15.2399637/post-32409854 (which you reacted with ❤️) disagreed with... So what's the point. I was right from the beginning.

As for the scenario you are talking about, again, what wireless wins over direct wire connection is convenience. There’s no doubt about it.

Yep, but not much and not always. Not when you're traveling, not much when you use magsafe attached to the cable etc. But anyway, you just futher confirms all my posts regarding wireless versus wired.

So why argue over this when we are on the same note?

 

[Shirasaki]

Yet again another confirmation of my initial Physics 101 post which this post https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...macs-ahead-of-iphone-15.2399637/post-32409854 (which you reacted with ❤️) disagreed with... So what's the point. I was right from the beginning.


Yep, but not much and not always. Not when you're traveling, not much when you use magsafe attached to the cable etc. But anyway, you just futher confirms all my posts regarding wireless versus wired.

So why argue over this when we are on the same note?

Because I am not arguing over what you say. I just state my stance on wireless charging. That’s all.

 

[FloatingBones]

Sorry, but which part did you not understand?

We understand you have no quantification to show how that "Going portless is against environment. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be."

"Very inefficient" compared to what? How does the wasted energy wireless charging compare to driving in an automobile -- gasoline or electric -- for 5 miles?

Making the claim with no quantification is incompetent. If you think that it's really "very inefficient", where have you been for the last decade in dismissing wireless charging? Why complain now?\

90% efficiency compared to <70% efficiency. Do you need definition of the efficiency?

You need to provide a quantification of this inefficiency. How big a problem is it, really? Why should we be concerned about it? How does this "inefficiency" compare to our other energy uses?

It defines how much of the energy is wasted in the process.

All you've provided is hand-waving. You have failed to provide a context as to whether or not that "wastage" is important.

Copper wire is more efficient electricity conductor than electromagnetic induction. The amount of energy lost in heat is bigger in case of electromagnetic induction. That's Physics 101.

"Physics 101" implies you've done the calculations -- provided the quantification. But you haven't. All you're doing is frantically waving your hands around -- creating heat for nothing.

Why are you not concerned with your energy waste of failing to back up your conclusion with no hard numbers? Your argument is all heat and no light.

And no, I'm not going to waste my time educating you of Physics.

You haven't proved that "the physics" actually exists -- that this "wastage" is something we should be concerned about.

If you really are concerned about this, you should have been fighting wireless charging since the start? Why start complaining now.

You can easily search that if you need to. I consider this as common and basic knowledge.

What exactly is the "this" you think is common knowledge? YOu think that this amount of "wastage" is significant?

If you do, you should dedicate all your hours to eliminating wireless charging. And you should start with providing the most basic quantifications of why you think this is a problem.

Until you do that, you're literally wasting energy. Stop it.

 

[sirozha]

It's nearly September, meaning that new iPhones are just around the corner. All four upcoming iPhone 15 models are widely expected to be equipped with a USB-C port instead of Lightning, but there may be speed differences across the lineup.

In November 2022, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said the USB-C port on the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max would support at least the USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt 3 specifications for data transfer speeds up to 20 or 40 Gbps. Kuo said the USB-C port on the lower-end iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus models would remain limited to USB 2.0 speeds of up to 480 Mbps, which is the same speed as Lightning on existing iPhones.

All current-generation iPad and Mac models already have USB-C ports with varying speeds:

Device	USB-C Specification
All current Mac models​	Thunderbolt (Up to 40 Gbps)​
iPad Pro (2021 and 2022)​	Thunderbolt (Up to 40 Gbps)​
iPad Pro (2018 and 2020)​	USB 3.1 Gen 2 (Up to 10 Gbps)​
iPad Air (2022)​	USB 3.1 Gen 2 (Up to 10 Gbps)​
iPad Air (2020)​	USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Up to 5 Gbps)​
iPad mini (2021)​	USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Up to 5 Gbps)​
iPad (2022)​	USB 2.0 (Up to 480 Mbps)​

The rumored speeds for the iPhone 15 lineup:

Device	USB-C Specification
iPhone 15 Pro Max​	USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt (Up to 20 or 40 Gbps)​
iPhone 15 Pro​	USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt (Up to 20 or 40 Gbps)​
iPhone 15 Plus​	USB 2.0 (Up to 480 Mbps)​
iPhone 15​	USB 2.0 (Up to 480 Mbps)​
iPhones with Lightning​	USB 2.0 (Up to 480 Mbps)​

Higher speeds allow for faster data transfer over a USB-C or Thunderbolt cable, such as when exporting photos from an iPhone to a Mac.

Rumors suggest that Apple will include a new braided USB-C cable with all iPhone 15 models, but the cable might remain limited to USB 2.0 speeds. This means that customers purchasing an iPhone 15 Pro or iPhone 15 Pro Max would need to purchase a higher-spec cable separately to take advantage of the faster speeds that are rumored.

Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 15 series at an event that is rumored to be planned for Tuesday, September 12. Apple has yet to officially announce the event, but invites will likely go out in the next week or two.

Article Link: Here's How Fast USB-C Ports Are on iPads and Macs Ahead of iPhone 15

There is no such thing as USB 3.1. It hasn’t been called this for years.

 

[sirozha]

Passive Thunderbolt 4 cables can’t be longer than 1 meter. Most people don’t need a data transfer cable longer than 1 meter, but the charging cable needs to be longer than 1 meter. Hence, the charging cable to be shipped with the iPhone 15 is not Thunderbolt rated. Same exact situation exists with the Macs. The charging cable that ships with the MacBook is USB2 speed rated because it’s longer than 1 meter.

 

[chucker23n1]

Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be."

"Very inefficient" compared to what?

Compared to… wired charging?

How does the wasted energy wireless charging compare to driving in an automobile -- gasoline or electric -- for 5 miles?

It doesn’t. How does making pizza compare to rowing a boat?

 

[Tagbert]

There is no such thing as USB 3.1. It hasn’t been called this for years.

All of USB naming is a sh*tshow and it is the fault of the USB-IF organization.

 

[HDFan]

Again, did you even tried 6e with 6 GHz? The distance is literally something like 2 meters without any obstacle.

I do see a big drop with distance (30 feet upstairs) but still a respectable 442 Mbps vs ~1300 Mbps in close proximity.

 

[chucker23n1]

I do see a big drop with distance (30 feet upstairs) but still a respectable 442 Mbps vs ~1300 Mbps in close proximity.

But even 1300 is a far cry from the promised maximum of 9608.

 

[3530025]

We understand you have no quantification to show how that "Going portless is against environment. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be."

"Very inefficient" compared to what? How does the wasted energy wireless charging compare to driving in an automobile -- gasoline or electric -- for 5 miles?

Making the claim with no quantification is incompetent. If you think that it's really "very inefficient", where have you been for the last decade in dismissing wireless charging? Why complain now?\


You need to provide a quantification of this inefficiency. How big a problem is it, really? Why should we be concerned about it? How does this "inefficiency" compare to our other energy uses?


All you've provided is hand-waving. You have failed to provide a context as to whether or not that "wastage" is important.


"Physics 101" implies you've done the calculations -- provided the quantification. But you haven't. All you're doing is frantically waving your hands around -- creating heat for nothing.

Why are you not concerned with your energy waste of failing to back up your conclusion with no hard numbers? Your argument is all heat and no light.



You haven't proved that "the physics" actually exists -- that this "wastage" is something we should be concerned about.

If you really are concerned about this, you should have been fighting wireless charging since the start? Why start complaining now.


What exactly is the "this" you think is common knowledge? YOu think that this amount of "wastage" is significant?

If you do, you should dedicate all your hours to eliminating wireless charging. And you should start with providing the most basic quantifications of why you think this is a problem.

Until you do that, you're literally wasting energy. Stop it.

Anyway, which part do you need sources for?

Efficiency of the wireless charging and efficiency of the wired charging?

Quantification is not required to state efficiency. As I already said in my previous posts responding to another member. Read all my posts if you want to report me for something. But anyway quantification is the number of all mobile devices in our context https://www.statista.com/statistics/245501/multiple-mobile-device-ownership-worldwide/
Average battery phone size is around 4000 mAh https://www.androidauthority.com/smartphone-battery-capacity-887305/
And you charge those usually every day. The amount of total wasted energy from charging phones globally would be ~30% more if everyone charged their phone wirelessly and not with wire.

Wireless charging: convenience over efficiency?

Explore the advantages and possible issues of wireless charging including its convenience and energy efficiency.

www.nxp.jp

Is wireless charging bad for smartphone battery health?

Wireless charging can definitely have an impact on battery life, though many factors must be considered.

www.androidauthority.com

Wireless charging inefficiency

Wireless charging is great until an analysis of its efficiency reveals that this feature has a problem: much more energy is wasted. The Wireless Power Consortium itself has long warned of the inefficiency of wireless charging systems, but a new study makes it clear that almost 50% more energy...

gofullbuild.com

How energy efficient is Qi wireless charging compared to wired charging?

Answer (1 of 9): 80% at best. Think about this multiplied by millions of devices and it's a colossal waste of energy.

www.quora.com

With same method you can calculate electricity loss when using any charger. You'll just measure input power and output power and check the difference (I've already talked about this in my previous post) https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-calculate-the-heat-loss-in-an-induction-furnace

 

[cocky jeremy]

My counter is the cables aren't going anywhere. The Lightning port phones that are being handed down and/or sold are still going to need the cable. Nothing is getting thrown out except the logic in this case.

Besides, it's Apple's doing for not switching when the rest of the line switched 5 plus years ago. There's no other way around this.

And even if they are getting thrown away, cables are a drop in the bucket compared to what humankind does to the planet. Blaming cables is just laughable.

If cables aren't an issue, why push for Apple to change to USB C to begin with? And those cables are absolutely being thrown away. Who is going to buy a new USB C phone and keep Lightning cables that are useless for anything other than older iPhones they've upgraded from?

 

[sirozha]

If cables aren't an issue, why push for Apple to change to USB C to begin with? And those cables are absolutely being thrown away. Who is going to buy a new USB C phone and keep Lightning cables that are useless for anything other than older iPhones they've upgraded from?

Cables are only thrown away if (1) they go bad (which happens to them all the time) or (2) the phone is thrown away or (3) the phone is traded in. If the phone is sold and the seller is getting a USB-C based phone, he/she will most likely include the Lightning cable with the phone that he/she is selling. If the phone is passed down, it's likely to be passed down with the Lightning cable(s) included.

Why transition to USB-C? Because when you travel and all your devices use the same connector, you don't have to bring a bunch of different cables with you. That's why. This is a good thing. The iPhone should have transitioned to USB-C years ago, and we wouldn't be having this conversation at this time. It's so stupid that even Macs that had USB-C ports on them were sold with the keyboards that had the Lightning ports on them. A complete and utter disaster. New Macs were released with USB-C ports while new iPhones and iPads were released with the Lightning ports. Then, the iPads were moved to USB-C, but the iPhones remained on Lightning. Total mess.

Everything Apple should be moved to USB-C: Macs, keyboards, mouses (yes, that's the correct spelling), trackpads, EarPod cases, headphones, etc. Everything should use the same connector. The times of USB-A, USB-B, miniUSB, microUSB, Lightning, etc. should be in the past.

 

[FloatingBones]

Anyway, which part do you need sources for?

Efficiency of the wireless charging and efficiency of the wired charging?

Quantification is not required to state efficiency.

But quantification is required to back up your claim, "Going portless is against environment. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be."

You need to quantify what "very inefficient" means. How much wasted energy? You told us that you had the "Physics 101" on this claim, but you have never provided that.

As I already said in my previous posts responding to another member. Read all my posts if you want to report me for something.

Why? Every single post should stand on its own. The forum rules say nothing about reading all posts.

The amount of total wasted energy from charging phones globally would be ~30% more if everyone charged their phone wirelessly and not with wire.

And exactly how much energy is that? How does that difference in energy compare with the other energy that the average person uses.

Second question: why are you complaining now? Wireless charging has been around for a decade or so? Why aren't you complaining about all wireless charging on all smart phone?

With same method you can calculate electricity loss when using any charger.

And how does that energy consumption compare with the normal energy that one person uses? How does that energy consumption compare to driving ONE MILE in an automobile? If you want to make an evidence-based conclusion that "Going portless is against environment. Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be.", then you must provide that quantification! Simply stating how much energy the phone consumes is not good enough; you must provide a context for your values. In short, you've got to provide the Physics 101 of your "very inefficient" claim.

This is what you need to do. If you can't support your "very inefficient" claim with an actual physical comparison, you shouldn't make it. Simple!

 

[3530025]

You need to quantify what "very inefficient" means. How much wasted energy? You told us that you had the "Physics 101" on this claim, but you have never provided that.

I’ve already provided all the sources needed, incl. quantification. Sorry that you just want to troll and intentional provoke.

 

[FloatingBones]

I’ve already provided all the sources needed, incl. quantification. Sorry that you just want to troll and intentional provoke.

Incorrect. If you had provided us with a "Physics 101" comparison, you cound instantly tell us how much energy "very inefficient" wireless charging wastes -- compared with driving an automobile one mile. Very simple stuff.

You have failed -- again and again -- to provide that comparison. Your "very inefficient" claim doesn't really add up to the day-to-day energy uses of a person. Your claim is all heat and no light.

You've also failed to explain to us: why are you complaining now? Why haven't you been complaining about induction charging for the last decade?

 

[3530025]

Incorrect. If you had provided us with a "Physics 101" comparison, you cound instantly tell us how much energy "very inefficient" wireless charging wastes -- compared with driving an automobile one mile. Very simple stuff.

You have failed -- again and again -- to provide that comparison. Your "very inefficient" claim doesn't really add up to the day-to-day energy uses of a person. Your claim is all heat and no light.

You've also failed to explain to us: why are you complaining now? Why haven't you been complaining about induction charging for the last decade?

I did not compare anything with automobile. You‘re probably mixing up some different messages.

You’re failing all the time - having correct discussion. You‘re still trolling, sorry about that.

Hope your day will get better. You need it.

 

[sirozha]

I did not compare anything with automobile. You‘re probably mixing up some different messages.

You’re failing all the time - having correct discussion. You‘re still trolling, sorry about that.

Hope your day will get better. You need it.

Passive aggressive. Not cool.

 

[splifingate]

true, very true...

but in the cars we all use wireless charging

Nup.

...sorry but the world is not thinking about environment, they are thinking about themselves..

Yup.

 

[_Spinn_]

I’m guessing the speeds will align with the iPad/iPad Pro. The iPhone will have USB 2.0 and the Pros will have Thunderbolt.

 

[HDFan]

But even 1300 is a far cry from the promised maximum of 9608.

My bad, I should have been clearer. ~1300 Mbps is the maximum speed of my internet modem. Haven't been able to to get an intranet speed test to work in order to determine maximum speed possible in my environment.

 

[chucker23n1]

My bad, I should have been clearer. ~1300 Mbps is the maximum speed of my internet modem. Haven't been able to to get an intranet speed test to work in order to determine maximum speed possible in my environment.

Ah, gotcha. I thought we were discussing the use case of using Wi-Fi to transmit data from the iPhone's internal storage to a local(!) computer.

 

[FloatingBones]

I did not compare anything with automobile. You‘re probably mixing up some different messages.

Bingo! That is exactly the largest problem with your 'against [the] environment" claim. You failed to answer the question: is wireless charging a significant thing that people do "against the environment", or is it an insignificant thing?

The amount of energy involved with charging our portable devices is insignificant compared with our other energy expenses: driving a car, having packages delivered to your home, heating your home, traveling, etc. That is Physics 101.

You’re failing all the time - having correct discussion.

Nope. I'm placing the "wastage' of wireless charging in the proper context. That "wastage" is insignificant in the context of individuals' energy expenditures.

As noted in this article, driving a Tesla 5 miles consumes about 1100 watt-hours. This is far more efficient than the average car -- or average delivery vehicle bringing food or packages to your house. How does that 1100 watt-hours compare to the "wastage" that you're claiming for wireless charging? It is insignificant. That's the point: that's the fallacy of looking at one of our energy expenditures without comparing it to other things. If you're trying to give us the "Physics 101" of wireless charging, you must have those comparisons. Simple!

One other point: if you want to attack wireless charging, then please attack all wireless charging, or explain to us why you think some wireless charging is "against the environment" and other wireless charging is OK.

 

[3530025]

Passive aggressive. Not cool.

Great to know, that he is not passive aggressive with all his aggressive posts, even after I provided all the sources he requested.