I wonder will the iPhone 15 models support Qi charging at 15 watts under the old standard or will it require the new Qi2 standard? If the latter, owners of current Qi chargers will still be limited to 7.5 watts initial charging rate. 
I was going to commission a multi-year $5 million study on the popularity of MagSafe so that I could make a hyper accurate comment on this forum
but then I decided to just go with my gut.
It's an observation, not a statement of fact.
Apple is literally member of the USB-IF, they contributed to USB-C and were the first to adopt them on laptops (2015 MacBooks). The only reason they’re being punished is not because of Lightning early arrival, it’s because of their MFI greed and their insistance on making Lightning “a connector for the next decade” without upgrading any of its standard during that decade. They could not have make that statement, and transition to USB-C 3 years later, but they didn’t want to lose the MFI golden cow. They only have themselves to blame for this.It's sad that the EU made them do away with Lightning. Apple saw the need for a reversible port before Android did and now they're being punished for it.
Has MagSafe been a bit of a bust? The accessories have proven to be too expensive for a lot of people and I don’t know anyone who uses it all that much. I have an accessory for my car, but otherwise I and my family use much cheaper and slower Qi chargers, and we’re all pretty happy with them. I just don’t think MagSafe really caught on in any meaningful way.
It’s pretty great for car mounts.Some thoughts on MagSafe and why it hasn't caught on. Fundamentally I'm not sure exactly what it solves:
Essentially with MagSafe you have invented a new 'port', except it attached onto the rear of the phone and is bigger and more expensive. And also charges the phone more inefficiently.
- No MagSafe puck in the box, and they're not cheap to buy either, so most people stick with the included cable or use their own wireless charger.
- When it magnets onto the phone it attaches. With traditional wireless chargers to place or pick up your phone on a surface and it charges, magic. With MagSafe I have to pull the puck off the back of the phone, how is this any different than just using a cable?
- It's big! When travelling a simple cable is more convenient.
- The phone gets hotter, and charges slower, with MagSafe. Again why not use a cable which is more efficient?
Apart from limited usage with battery packs what exactly is the point?
No it won't be wonderful. Wireless charging is terrible for battery health, especially for those that keep their phones for years.Thank the maker! Portless will happen eventually and it will be wonderful.
Completely agree with all your points. I would have bought one at some point just to try it out if it so expensive when first released. By the time 3rd party chargers were released, I had already bought qi chargers and didn’t need MagSafe.Some thoughts on MagSafe and why it hasn't caught on. Fundamentally I'm not sure exactly what it solves:
Essentially with MagSafe you have invented a new 'port', except it attached onto the rear of the phone and is bigger and more expensive. And also charges the phone more inefficiently.
- No MagSafe puck in the box, and they're not cheap to buy either, so most people stick with the included cable or use their own wireless charger.
- When it magnets onto the phone it attaches. With traditional wireless chargers to place or pick up your phone on a surface and it charges, magic. With MagSafe I have to pull the puck off the back of the phone, how is this any different than just using a cable?
- It's big! When travelling a simple cable is more convenient.
- The phone gets hotter, and charges slower, with MagSafe. Again why not use a cable which is more efficient?
Apart from limited usage with battery packs what exactly is the point?
To not have ports.Some thoughts on MagSafe and why it hasn't caught on. Fundamentally I'm not sure exactly what it solves:
Essentially with MagSafe you have invented a new 'port', except it attached onto the rear of the phone and is bigger and more expensive. And also charges the phone more inefficiently.
- No MagSafe puck in the box, and they're not cheap to buy either, so most people stick with the included cable or use their own wireless charger.
- When it magnets onto the phone it attaches. With traditional wireless chargers to place or pick up your phone on a surface and it charges, magic. With MagSafe I have to pull the puck off the back of the phone, how is this any different than just using a cable?
- It's big! When travelling a simple cable is more convenient.
- The phone gets hotter, and charges slower, with MagSafe. Again why not use a cable which is more efficient?
Apart from limited usage with battery packs what exactly is the point?
They did upgrade Lightning to USB 3.0, but it was only on the Lightning iPad Pros, 10.5” and the first two 13”, and only with the camera connection kit.…and their insistence on making Lightning “a connector for the next decade” without upgrading any of its standard during that decade.
lol. No it isn't.The wannabe “wireless” charging called MagSafe is also a port, a 1mm gap does not invalidate it.