Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I get that its not Qi charging, but you slap the tablet on the keyboard magnetically, and it charges.

Qi / Smart connectors. That's semantical. its still without grabbing a wire and plugging it into the body of the device. Hence, wireless.

You still need to attach and plug in a USB C charger into the MKB or iPad. Therefore it’s not wireless charging, at least not in the way people expect it to.

A Qi wireless charger is a dedicated charging puck. The MKB or iPad can rest on it without being plugged in. Just because the magic keyboard is magnetic and can charge thru the smart connector doesn’t make it a wireless charger. That’s not what people mean
 
You still need to attach and plug in a USB C charger into the MKB or iPad. Therefore it’s not wireless charging, at least not in the way people expect it to.

A Qi wireless charger is a dedicated charging puck. The MKB or iPad can rest on it without being plugged in. Just because the magic keyboard is magnetic and can charge thru the smart connector doesn’t make it a wireless charger. That’s not what people mean

This is an absurd circular 'debate'.

The charging puck is attached to a cord. It is plugged in.

I'm just saying *if* you keep your MKB plugged in constantly and stationary somewhere, and use your iPad as a tablet out and about, when you dock it it can serve as a wireless charger (in the same way a puck is) for certain uses. Not for everyone and not all use cases which is what I said from the start.




I'm done with this and completely disinterested at this point.
 
As long as they don’t get rid of the usb-c/thunderbolt port. I travel a lot and lugging around an even larger wireless charging mat for the iPad sounds like a pain. Plus a glass back on a 12.9” device sounds idiotic. Not only will it make the iPad heavier, it will be prone to cracks. I hope this rumor isn’t true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutrino23
Glass iPad? NO thanks!
But certainly there will be some to whom this will be sold like the next best thing and out of warranty replacement of the back glass will be only 499$.
 
Use case: travel. Plug in ipad. Stick other devices on top to charge on nightstand overnight. No need to bring chargers for everything.
You can do that already if you have an iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard, with the benefit being you can use them both while charging. When I've traveled over the past couple of years with my iPad Pro (prior to getting a MK), I'd bring just one 18W charging brick, a USB-C cord, a USB-C to Lightning cable and my Watch charger puck (USB-C). I charge the iPhone towards the end of the night (say 2 hours before I go to sleep), then plug in the iPad Pro overnight and come morning charge my Watch before heading out.
 
No dude, wireless chargers are universally referring Qi chargers. We don’t need to pick apart what I said, and no one said it was a new concept.

The point is to bring that concept to the iPad so you don’t need to attach anything to the iPad while charging. A puck resting on or underneath an iPad isn’t attached or connected, they’re just touching. That is the point of Qi wireless charging that makes it convenient
And again, his point is, you still need to plug in the wireless charger 🙄
 
This is an absurd circular 'debate'.

The charging puck is attached to a cord. It is plugged in.

I'm just saying *if* you keep your MKB plugged in constantly and stationary somewhere, and use your iPad as a tablet out and about, when you dock it it can serve as a wireless charger (in the same way a puck is) for certain uses. Not for everyone and not all use cases which is what I said from the start.




I'm done with this and completely disinterested at this point.

Then why would you bother even asking me “why” and responding to me with a pointless question when you are able to grasp the idea that “Not for everyone and not all use cases which is what I said from the start.”

So take what you said and apply it to yourself. “Why?” Because not everyone uses their portable iPad Pro as a desktop and gets a $350 keyboard as a glorified wireless charger mount.

“ The charging puck is attached to a cord. It is plugged in.”

Don’t get hung up on the word wireless charger, even if you can charge wireless without being near the charger, the charger itself is still plugged in so your first argument is moot. If you can’t get over with the word I use, then just refer everything I said about wireless chargers as Qi chargers. We don’t need to get smart with the naming here. I’m clearly talking about Qi chargers or chargers that do not need to connect into a port
 
  • Haha
Reactions: thadoggfather
You can do that already if you have an iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard, with the benefit being you can use them both while charging. When I've traveled over the past couple of years with my iPad Pro (prior to getting a MK), I'd bring just one 18W charging brick, a USB-C cord, a USB-C to Lightning cable and my Watch charger puck (USB-C). I charge the iPhone towards the end of the night (say 2 hours before I go to sleep), then plug in the iPad Pro overnight and come morning charge my Watch before heading out.

That’s a lot of cords. You only need one with what I described. And you don’t have to carefully time when you charge things - you can charge them all at once.
 
First OLED now this? 2021 iPad pro customers are suckers.

more like iScam Pro Bloom 2021
How are they suckers? Nothing has been released and everything is a rumor. I guess you are one of those people who believes everything because somebody heard it from someone else. LMFAO.
 
I wonder why Apple would need to eliminate the ports on an iPad. It is not that they struggle to fit it in, especially considering that iPads have been increasing in size over the years. IMO, the current wireless charging is an energy-wasting and overheating gimmick, thus resulting in overall slower charging speed and degrading the battery’s lifespan. Not good.
Zero-port, zero-wires is the future for consumer electronics. About as ‘Jobs-ian’ of a philosophy as you can get.
 
Next release is probably not till October 2022. Can’t keep waiting for the next big thing or when Apple decides what your getting for bread crumbs.
 
That’s a lot of cords. You only need one with what I described. And you don’t have to carefully time when you charge things - you can charge them all at once.
My example is what I’ve been doing currently, not at some future point with what may or may not come to fruition.

The solution of charging an iPhone (not a Watch, because that seemingly will still require an indented charging puck) on the back of an iPad, while charging the iPad via a USB-C charging cable, still means you have to bring a two charging bricks, a USB-C cable and a Watch charging cord / puck. You could skip one charging brick and use the iPad’s USB-C port to charge the Watch (once the iPad is charged via cable, or you’d have to have a MagSafe puck to charge it at the same time), but that too means you would have to figure out timing.

If Apple would have just switched to USB-C for the iPhone and all other accessories, you could have gotten away with bringing just one charging brick and cable to charge multiple devices.

I’ve always felt that the reverse inductive charging on smartphones was a poorly thought out solution, because you effectively have to stop using both the phone and the headphones (the most likely use case for reverse wireless charging) while they’re charging. I’d rather just have a MagSafe battery bank that I can connect to my iPhone, AirPods Pro case, or future iPad Pro to top up as needed and shuffle it around from device to device.

Other than the potential concept of true wireless over the air charging, there just isn’t a great solution to multi-device charging from one single device.
 
I really do not want wireless charging in an iPad. It just makes it heavier and thicker and more fragile. I am fine with the security of charing by cable. When I travel I carry just one brick, one by Anker with multiple sockets. Besides, most hotels now have charging ports built in to the desk or headboard. Instead of a bulky charging mat just get a small GaN charger.

This is one thing that irks me about Apple.

Things I want:
Make the front surface such that using the Pencil feels more like using paper.
Put the camera on the long side so that when using FaceTime in landscape mode the camera is on top and centered.
Develop iPadOS to make multitasking and file access easier.

What is proposed.
Wireless charging.
 
First OLED now this? 2021 iPad pro customers are suckers.

more like iScam Pro Bloom 2021
I’m using mine right now and it is fantastic for my use. It paid itself a couple of hours ago. You just sound broke. These type of ‘jokes’ or ‘comebacks’ have not been funny since 2004.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdoherty
I found out these iPads put out more RF Radiation than sitting at your iMac all day.
Macbook = 800
AirPort Extreme =600
iMac = 400
iPad = 500
Mac mini =200.

For people with Cancer or not wanting to get Cancer this is bad.

Some Day you'll care. when Cancer hits you.

I;m going with the Mac mini when the M1x model comes out.


How many mSv is that?
 
While a glass back might look sleek, it will also add quite a bit of weight to an iPad, which is not so welcome for a portable device, IMO.
Remember, Liquidmetal is known as Amorphous Glass. Just because they say “glass” it doesn’t mean that it won’t still look metallic. I do wonder about it’s durability, though. I haven’t seen high impact examples of the Alloy.
 
Wireless charging on something that big? How much heat and time would it take? Sounds silly imo. And using glass? More breakage, more money for Apple Care and/or repairs!! I now see the reason. :D
So you cant use the ipad while is charging wireless ?
no way Apple will do that
When you think about it, the Magic Keyboard currently offers “wireless charging”. It’s not Qi, so it’s non-standard. But it’s only slightly less “wireless” than the smart connector, especially with the same “array of magnets” that holds it in place just like with MagSafe. It charges full speed and you can use it while it’s charging. :)
 
I really do not want wireless charging in an iPad. It just makes it heavier and thicker and more fragile. I am fine with the security of charing by cable. When I travel I carry just one brick, one by Anker with multiple sockets. Besides, most hotels now have charging ports built in to the desk or headboard. Instead of a bulky charging mat just get a small GaN charger.

This is one thing that irks me about Apple.

Things I want:
Make the front surface such that using the Pencil feels more like using paper.
Put the camera on the long side so that when using FaceTime in landscape mode the camera is on top and centered.
Develop iPadOS to make multitasking and file access easier.

What is proposed.
Wireless charging.

They are doing at least 2 of the things on your list. Just because this rumor doesn’t include them doesn’t mean that the only improvement to iPad will be what is in this particular rumor.
 
I found out these iPads put out more RF Radiation than sitting at your iMac all day.
Macbook = 800
AirPort Extreme =600
iMac = 400
iPad = 500
Mac mini =200.

For people with Cancer or not wanting to get Cancer this is bad.

Some Day you'll care. when Cancer hits you.

I;m going with the Mac mini when the M1x model comes out.


Please be careful about quoting numerical statistics that are missing context. First, there are no units specified, so they need to be considered meaningless without it. I did follow the posted link (so it's good that that was there) and got the units, but I also noticed the Macbook at 800 mV/m"@Head". Does this mean holding a Macbook pro up to your head? Later it says at the keyboard is 2000 mV/m, so I assume "@Head" does not mean the keyboard at the head.

Actual damage is also distance dependent (which the measurement does try to account for, but without thinking about it that can be misleading even if technically correct.

Frequency is also important. High frequency energy (X-Rays, Gamma Rays, etc.) are much more damaging than low frequency. Radio waves are in the lowest frequency range of all. I'm acutally not an EE so I don't even know what the frequency of radiation is actually used for wireless charging, but I'm sure it's in the low end of the spectrum, partly because it can only be done up close. And I don't even see a number for a wireless inductive charger. Do you have a wireless charging electric toothbrush?

OK, so, yes, all other things being equal, I will agree that "lower is better" but everything is a tradeoff. A lot of radio frequency isn't going away unless you get rid of all broadcast (including wireless) communication. Notice that in that article one of the worst offenders was a cordless (not cellular) phone. But we need to know the numbers and keep everything in context, which means units and agreed upon "safety" limits at least as guidelines.
 
Last edited:
As far as the original proposition, I'm not that much in favor of wireless charging as a feature, forward or reverse. I find fast charging much more useful on something like an iPad Pro that has a large battery. It will also need a pretty big footprint to put it flat on a charging pad. The reverse charging might be nice in an emergency, but It's not worth much to me. I'd rather carry around a wireless charging battery pack in those circumstances; much more capacity and much more useful.

This doesn't make me wish I were waiting for 2022 or 2023 to upgrade my 2017 model. We'll see if/how it pans out, and, sure, it might be nice, but it will not be a deal maker or breaker for me. On the phone, I considered it much more practical.
 
How many mSv is that?
I have converted the table to mSv for you (originally in mV/m):

Macbook = 0
AirPort Extreme =0
iMac = 0
iPad = 0
Mac mini =0.

Ah. That was easy to convert.

Frequency is also important. High frequency energy (X-Rays, Gamma Rays, etc.) are much more damaging than low frequency. Radio waves are in the lowest frequency range of all. I'm acutally not an EE so I don't even know what the frequency of radiation is actually used for wireless charging, but I'm sure it's in the low end of the spectrum, partly because it can only be done up close. And I don't even see a number for a wireless inductive charger. Do you have a wireless charging electric toothbrush?

Frequency happens to be the *only* thing important here. EM radiation can cause cancer in two ways:
1. Either directly damaging the DNA chain (a high-energy photon excites an electron in the chain, which gets released, and the chain changes conformation or can't be replicated without error).
2. A high-energy photon excites a hydrogen atom in a water molecule, which gets released, creating a reactive oxygen species (a OH⁻ molecule) and a free hydrogen atom (H⁺). This reactive species will bind to almost anything. If it binds to a DNA chain, it will be malformed, and errors could happen during replication, same as above (interestingly, most of the damage induced by radiation happens this way, not directly).

You need photons with an energy of about 1eV (electron-volt) to take an elecron away from a water molecule. We call radiation composed of photons with this kind of energy (or more) ionizing radiation. The highest possible frequency an Apple product could emit is at 6GHz, equivalent to 0.00000046 eV, which is non-ionizing.

You could argue well, if enough photons hit an electron, it could reach enough energy to get detached from the molecule. But this happens to be impossible*. Electronic energy levels are quantized: that is, electrons have to be at specific energy levels. If a photon hits an electron at a certain energy level but doesn't carry enough energy to promote the electron to the next energy level, nothing happens. It can't be between two energy levels.

Well, something can happen. The whole atom can absorb some kinetic energy from the photon (this is a different process than the one above) and release a photon with even less energy (longer wavelength), but the molecular structure remains totally unchanged. It simply moves faster, which in a macromolecular level we describe as 'heating'. But a lot of things can heat your body tissues (heat, for instance), and none of them is known to cause cancer.

----------------
(*) There's a process called two-photon absorption, in which two photons are absorbed by the electron at the exact same time, and their energies are added. This is why radiation just below the 1eV threshold (i.e. UV light on the lower end of the spectrum) can still potentially ionize an atom. However, the probability of two-photon absorption is about a hundred times less likely than single-photon absorption. Make that 10,000 times less likely for three-photon absorption. For a 6GHz frequency to ionize an atom, you would need two million photons to be absorbed at the exact same time by the exact same atom. Which is, indeed, impossible.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.