Battery technology is actually not progressing that much, though. Most of the gains we get are from A)Bigger Batteries B) More efficient chips and C) More efficient software
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.
iPhone Batteries Could Have Apple-Designed Power Management Chips Within Two Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Battery technology is actually not progressing that much, though. Most of the gains we get are from A)Bigger Batteries B) More efficient chips and C) More efficient software
Am not questioning you personally here, but objectively - how would you measure such advances in battery technology? Won't any new advance instantly be gobbled up by more demanding features/ extra bells and whistles (always on features etc.?). I am no battery expert, but is it possible we hear about efficient chips and software because they are made by the OEM's themselves and they showcase these proudly in keynotes, whereas batteries from Tier I suppliers may have no one to tout their advances??
Yes I do. I was just talking earlier about how iOS using th CPU so hard is why we have this issue. But I was talking with this other person how the CPU isn’t powerful enough for five years of updates because five years ago ARM had a lot weaker CPU than today.
Yeah, I do call that investment. And no, I don’t think Apple really cared much for the Mac Pro until recently. They seemingly wanted to make the iMac the only desktop. But I’m not going to discount that they’re investing in the Mac. Is it as much as I’d like? No. But the number does exist.
Well, I was mainly referring to density (more energy in the same space). That advances at around 5-8 percent on average per year. Not much to write home about in the grand scheme of things.
What do you mean , until recently ? Since 2010 Apple has not cared about Mac Pro ....
Do you realise Tim is trying to push the iPad Pro as a Mac replacement cause it get him higher profits ? This is why mac is being neglected , tim wants you to buy into the crap that PCs / macs are dead and the future Is an iPad Pro .... cause here is a lot more profit in an iPad Pro.
Nothing to do with reality, it's just about profits .
Mac continues to exist cause the iPad Pro sucks as a replacement .....
No, they created an entirely new Mac Pro in 2013. They made a bet that didn’t pan out and seemingly gave up on making a new one. Look, I get being angry. But pretending reality is something different is not the thing to do. And I don’t think the iPad push is about higher profits but about really believing that most people can do everything with an iPad. Otherwise they wouldn’t have updated the laptop macs almost every year. They’ve also been updating the iMac every year that isn’t 2016.
I have the 2013 Mac Pro , Apple gave up on the pro, years before I bought mine. Are you pretending or me? Cause we may disagree here
I have the 2013 Mac Pro , Apple gave up on the pro, years before I bought mine. Are you pretending or me? Cause we may disagree here
We can agree to disagree then. I believe they didn’t put enough focus on the Mac, but I also believe that’s different than ignoring it completely.
If we get pedantic , are you going to stick to "ignoring it completely" cause both you and me, can agree I never said that ..... let's not move the goal posts here ...
You said “all investment is in iOS and iPhone”. That implies you’re sticking with the idea that they aren’t investing in th Mac at all. Which isn’t true, it just isn’t at the number either of us would like it to be.
I see pedantic it is .
Well with over 75% revenue coming from idevices ..... does my statement make any sense to you, nope , okay let's do pedantic , apple is still Selling Macs.... so there is "some" investment.... there you go
P.S Apple used to be computer company with Mac being the main revenue source , hope that fills on the gaps in my statement . I'll choose my words very carefully next time , I assumed some context was a
Given
I see pedantic it is .
Well with over 75% revenue coming from idevices ..... does my statement make any sense to you, nope , okay let's do pedantic , apple is still Selling Macs.... so there is "some" investment.... there you go
P.S Apple used to be computer company with Mac being the main revenue source , hope that fills on the gaps in my statement . I'll choose my words very carefully next time , I assumed some context was a
Given
Apple hasn’t had primarily revenue from traditional computers for years. It started when Steve Jobs came back and created the iPod.
So want we doing here ? Flipping sides in the argument ? You are now trying to prove how insignificant Macs are ?
This is fun....
I’m saying your argument that it’s not a Mac focused company now because of the iPhone could easily be applied to the iPod days. Using revenue as a measure is a poor one.
And Macs have never been significant in the grand scheme of things, let’s be real.
Those of us who use our iPhones hillwalking, for example, and you'd think Apple would get that since their marketing always shows the great outdoors. An iPhone does not last a day with GPS on. There are other intensive uses of the iPhone in the office that also drain batteries quickly and USB ports are not always available during meetings or travelling. Sure, one could take a battery pack to recharge, but it is hassle. I'd like to see an iPhone with greater better capacity, say 2 full days (or 1 full day with GPS on).
Also, Apple's fetish with thinness has led to smaller batteries, which means more recharge cycles per unit of time, which results in greater performance degradation per unit of time (and greater depreciation of the value of the iPhone).
So ... yeah... not such a small issue for some.
Customers want thinner and lighter, not heavier and thicker. People who need GPS all day are a 1% edge case.
Even if it were 10% or 20% of users wanting longer lasting batteries, Apple isn’t going to make 80-90% of users carry around a thicker, heavier phone 100% of the time, just to satisfy a small minority who sometimes need a lot of battery capacity. Even heavier users may only need the greater capacity a few times a month.
People can call it a thinness obsession/fetish or blame Mr. Ive if they wish, but Apple’s simply giving people what they’re asking for. Users who need more can serve their needs with a battery case or battery pack, without penalizing the vast majority who end the day at, who knows, maybe 20-60% battery—and are perfectly fine just charging at night.
Same with laptops. Most want thin and light, with decent battery. They don’t want thick and heavy, with 16 hours of battery capacity, when 8-10 hours is fine since they rarely use more than 3 or 4 anyway.
Again, it’s about give most users what they need most of the time, not about the heaviest requirements of the top 20 percentile.
Even if it were 10% or 20% of users wanting longer lasting batteries, Apple isn’t going to make 80-90% of users carry around a thicker, heavier phone 100% of the time, just to satisfy a small minority who sometimes need a lot of battery capacity. Even heavier users may only need the greater capacity a few times a month.
People can call it a thinness obsession/fetish or blame Mr. Ive if they wish, but Apple’s simply giving people what they’re asking for. Users who need more can serve their needs with a battery case or battery pack, without penalizing the vast majority who end the day at, who knows, maybe 20-60% battery—and are perfectly fine just charging at night.
Same with laptops. Most want thin and light, with decent battery. They don’t want thick and heavy, with 16 hours of battery capacity, when 8-10 hours is fine since they rarely use more than 3 or 4 anyway.
Again, it’s about give most users what they need most of the time, not about the heaviest requirements of the top 20 percentile.
Last edited: