"Testing suggests the MagSafe Charger charges the iPhone 12 more than less than half as fast than a wired 20W USB-C charger."
What?
What?
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.
MagSafe: Everything About Apple's iPhone Charging Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean I get the appeal of just placing your phone on a counter in the hall after entering your home, but Magsafe doesn't even do that well.
What does "more than less than half as fast" mean???
This was originally worded a different way and then I changed the wording right before publishing and forgot to remove all of the prior wording. I've now fixed it, it should say less than half as fast, with the "more than" being the extraneous info that's now been removed. Thanks for the heads up on this, and I hope this explains what it was supposed to mean.
Testing suggests the MagSafe Charger charges the iPhone 12 more than less than half as fast than a wired 20W USB-C charger.
That sentence lol
That sentence lol
Well, yes, but the shape is meant to represent the MagSafe charger, which is what I was trying to convey.
For one it is clear Apple is trying to associate magnets and charging with the blockier designed devices, the iPad pros have had a pretty similar implementation for charging the Apple Pencil, and it wouldn't surprise me that they will add magnets to the Apple watches or AirPods case so they could wireless charge in the same manner (possible even off future iPhones). Also I'd like to see if this actually makes cases more useful if they are held together by Magnets as its abysmal on the iPad Pros.
Next is the fact of the way they went about this. New iPhones don't come with a charging brick, but a useless USB C to lightning cable. They even stopped selling the old charging bricks to have a brand new 20 watt USB C one that so happens to be the only one that works with this new $40 wireless charger that Apple is selling (and it's fancy because magnets), but it barely works with any older iPhones as well, but you might as well buy one on your return trip to the store buying that USB C brick as its only twice the cost anyways (and why not throw more money at a $1000 phone that can't charge itself). This all seems to be by design to make the most people buy these products as possible and generate the most profit possible.
Also there are those people pointing out this is really just Apple trying to avoid putting a USB C port on the phone itself and instead generate all these discussions about their new MagSafe chargers and also disguising that they are charging more for phones without headphones either beyond the charging bricks, and this will allow Apple to start selling portless iPhones in the next few years with not as much anger at that time. Those people are correct about the fact that Apple is touting itself as green friendly and has these new features to outweigh the fact that they are blatantly ripping people off, although I'm not so sure about portless iPhones coming that soon giving they are touting the fast charging at the same time, but it does seem to be an end goal .
Next is the fact of the way they went about this. New iPhones don't come with a charging brick, but a useless USB C to lightning cable. They even stopped selling the old charging bricks to have a brand new 20 watt USB C one that so happens to be the only one that works with this new $40 wireless charger that Apple is selling (and it's fancy because magnets), but it barely works with any older iPhones as well, but you might as well buy one on your return trip to the store buying that USB C brick as its only twice the cost anyways (and why not throw more money at a $1000 phone that can't charge itself). This all seems to be by design to make the most people buy these products as possible and generate the most profit possible.
Also there are those people pointing out this is really just Apple trying to avoid putting a USB C port on the phone itself and instead generate all these discussions about their new MagSafe chargers and also disguising that they are charging more for phones without headphones either beyond the charging bricks, and this will allow Apple to start selling portless iPhones in the next few years with not as much anger at that time. Those people are correct about the fact that Apple is touting itself as green friendly and has these new features to outweigh the fact that they are blatantly ripping people off, although I'm not so sure about portless iPhones coming that soon giving they are touting the fast charging at the same time, but it does seem to be an end goal .
well.. I want to buy one of these to charge my 12pro but also use it for my other devices such as airpods pro like a regular Qi charger.. but when I saw that ytb video where its showns that it can only charge around 0,9 - 3 watts what a joke.. thats just no go for me
what a joke.. thats just no go for meMeh. At some point a laptop (or other device) is so featherweight, it just doesn't make sense anymore, because the magnet would have to be so weak, it wouldn't stay attached anyway. I'm not against the trend, but the way Apple has been moving over the years, a gust of wind might blow your MBA away - forget tripping over the power cord...
What I don't like about the MagSafe? After my phone hits 100% the charger and the phone heat up like crazy.
I don't like the idea of magnets in my iPhone: credit cards, entrance cards all kinds
of possible interference: not safe at all. The name is an insult to my (still functioning) Macbook Pro magsafe.
Does this now mean that all future phones models will all have these not required magnets?
Or do we get a choice of 2 iPhone models in future: with or without.....
of possible interference: not safe at all. The name is an insult to my (still functioning) Macbook Pro magsafe.
Does this now mean that all future phones models will all have these not required magnets?
Or do we get a choice of 2 iPhone models in future: with or without.....
Something about this MagSafe still excites me for some reason so I went ahead and put in an order for a MagSafe charger and two 20W USB-C adapters from the Apple Store in anticipation of my iPhone 12 purchase (still deciding which one of those I’m going to get).
I’ve been putting off wireless charging for years now but there’s no doubt that it’s the future so I best get used to it.
I’ve been putting off wireless charging for years now but there’s no doubt that it’s the future so I best get used to it.
Will the wire on the wireless charging base be compromised by pulling it and having to overcome the magnet to get it off the phone? It seems like it'd have a short life.
I'd have thought it inevitably would be. Especially if you positively pull it off (with the 600 to 900 gf Apple say is required).
Practise sliding it off gently from the moment you get one?
Last edited:
You can say similar things about Qi itself. Would it be therefore correct to say that you think Qi shouldn’t even exist? (Or also automatic gearboxes in cars.)
Automatic gearboxes do not necessarily imply heavier fuel consumption.
On mine, the consumption is almost indistinguishable between manual and auto. Within the range, some engine options return better manual consumption, other engine options return better auto consumption. (Based on both official and "real world" figures reported.) Most of the differences are so small, they would be dwarfed by minor adjustments to driving style.
Similarly, the apparent excessive power usage of Qi or MagSafe can be reduced by using our phones as little as possible. Turning off things that are not needed. (Sure, you can do that regardless how you charge. But for every watt-hour you don't use, you also don't incur the Qi/MagSafe overhead of recharging by the watt-hour.)
That is a really silly comparison but ok, I’ll play along.
Since I specifically mentioned Qi as a better overall solution to the new Apple offering I would say no, I don’t think that Qi shouldn’t exist. Furthermore Qi doesn’t require a special brick nor is it less efficient with older models (at least the ones that are Qi compatible) nor does it require as much physical interaction, nor does it generate as much heat as the Apple solution Is reported to.
That being said I don’t own a Qi because I don’t want a less efficient charging system, I’m ok with cabled. YMMV.
What fricking special brick are you talking about? Are you still hung up on the fact that the MagSafe charging puck that Apple sells happens to come with a USB-C plug at the end? That doesn't have anything to do with MagSafe, third-parties can offer MagSafe cables with USB-A plugs if there is a demand for that.
And Qi wasn't just less efficient with older models (ie, iPhones that came before the first Qi-compatible iPhone), it didn't work at all. And Qi also requires some special interaction (you have to place it in the correct location or it might not charge). And there is zero evidence that MagSafe produces more heat than Qi charging (when comparing the same charging speeds of course). And lastly, MagSafe likely is more efficient than Qi because it has perfect allignment, something that will be a bit hit and miss with most Qi chargers.
Compare Qi with plugged-in charging and you see a number of disadvantages (efficiency, speed, risk of misallignment, cost of chargers) as well as advantages (easy putting down and picking up). MagSafe similarly has advantages and disadvantages. One of your mistakes seems to be that you equate MagSafe with the MagSafe puck that Apple sells (your apparent criticism of the USB-C plug of that puck indicates that), while MagSafe has functionality that goes beyond that puck.
Modern automatic gearboxes have overcome the vast majority of their disadvantages. But that wasn't true for literally several decades. The point being that when automatic gearboxes first started appearing, they had significant disadvantages, something that the logic of some opponents of MagSafe should have made them not worth creating.