Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lithium Polymer?

T

transistor2000

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 11, 2009
17
7
Just wanted to get some of your thoughts/opinions as to why no lithium polymer battery in iPhone 4? It has the iPad's A4 but yet uses outdated and inferior battery chemistry? In my personal experience, the Li-ion in the previous gen iPhones always tend to lose capacity and stamina after roughly a year of life, given roughly daily charges (300+ per year). This is one of the main reasons why I'm considering the upgrade from 3GS to 4, among others, but if my 3GS battery still performed as well as it did a year ago, I would consider hanging on to it.

Is this by design, and/or somehow Apple's secret conspiracy to shorten the lifespan and speed the product refresh cycle? I would think since the battery technology in the uMBP/iPad is so highly touted and desirable, Apple would like to highlight the dramatic increases in charging cycles, phone stand-by times, and stamina in the iPhone 4 as well, in addition to differentiating it more from it's competitors, rather than just marginal gains due to increasing battery capacity and decreasing logic real estate. The iPad has done well in this regard, considering it's amazing battery life, and is seen by many to be it's "killer feature".

Thanks in advance.
 
Lithium polymer isn't a superior technology to lithium-ion. The real advantage of lithium polymer is that it can be shaped into different forms to put more battery into irregular spaces.

Since they obviously had room for a rectangular battery in the iPhone 4, it wasn't necessary. Battery life would be the same.

Also, lithium polymer is more expensive right now, so be glad you aren't paying an extra $20 or so for your phone.
 
I'm not sure about the all the facts between the two types, but isn't the Li-Polymer more flammable/explosive?
 
$20... I'd be glad to spend a little extra up front for dramatically increased life span and performance out of a non-removable battery. If it buys me a year or two of really enjoying the device, I think it is worth it.
I may be misinformed on capacity characteristics between the two technologies and not have all of the technical facts, but it is Apple that touts their latest and greatest battery lasting over 5 years without needing service/replacement. Maybe saying that is just to assure people that their idea of a non-user replaceable battery is the right thing to do. Maybe we're so used to disposing of the device after just 20% of that theoretical lifespan, that we will never really know the difference anyway.
This Anandtech article summarizes some of the differences.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2783/1
 
I'm 98% sure that the iPhones are already using Lithium Ion Polymer batteries, and that it is only new tech for LAPTOPS that makes it a big deal in the MBP. Let me know if I'm misinformed...
 
The biggest reason for using lithium polymer cells in higher voltage batteries is that internal volume can be maximized due to the irregular shapes polymer cells can be formed into. With single-cell phone batteries this advantage is mitigated as there is only a single cell inside the battery, and capacity can't be increased by going to a lithium polymer cell over a lithium-ion cell for the same volume. The iPhone is using a single cell 3.7V battery, while the iPad likely uses a higher voltage (my guess would be 3-cell) battery.
 
Thx. I went looking for battery info and missed that...
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    129.5 KB · Views: 97
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back