Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Guess it won't be the iPhone 7 but rather the 7S (S as in Samsung) that will ditch the archaic LCD for SAMOLED.
 
Good luck with not having a charging plate sat on a desk . Mine is invaluable, make a call, put it down, it charges, rinse and repeat. It's only the anti Samsung brigade who have an issue with a charging matt. Do you really think that you can plug some thing in a wall and it will charge anything in the room. Electric pulsing through the air. Never to be done. If you want your nuts fried. Go for it.

I think you have a regressive mindset on future tech. I believe the way true wireless charging stations work is by using other sorts of waves like RF to charge devices wirelessly. It would be similar to how your phone connects to wifi. It's just another sort of wave that is going around your house. It does not fry your nuts. I am actually pretty health conscious, and there was lots of talk about that when bluetooth started to get bigger, and even bluetooth, but I don't think people will develop skin cancer and other types of cancer due to these waves. If you think about the future, there is no other way around it, it simply has to come eventually, and if there is some sort of health degradation due to having so much wireless tech, then I'm sure we'll adapt - because it's not going away.

Me personally, I'm not in need of wireless charging, that's why I don't like the pad. I can charge my phone at night, and be perfectly fine. Wireless charging would be convenient, but I just don't like a pad, because I don't need wireless charging that badly to begin with.
 
I think you have a regressive mindset on future tech. I believe the way true wireless charging stations work is by using other sorts of waves like RF to charge devices wirelessly. It would be similar to how your phone connects to wifi. It's just another sort of wave that is going around your house. It does not fry your nuts. I am actually pretty health conscious, and there was lots of talk about that when bluetooth started to get bigger, and even bluetooth, but I don't think people will develop skin cancer and other types of cancer due to these waves. If you think about the future, there is no other way around it, it simply has to come eventually, and if there is some sort of health degradation due to having so much wireless tech, then I'm sure we'll adapt - because it's not going away.

Me personally, I'm not in need of wireless charging, that's why I don't like the pad. I can charge my phone at night, and be perfectly fine. Wireless charging would be convenient, but I just don't like a pad, because I don't need wireless charging that badly to begin with.

The hurdle with wireless charging is (in)efficiency. The signal from WiFi or cell towers or whatever work by transmitting a signal through the radio waves. So long as that signal can be received with a strength that exceeds a minimum signal-to-noise ratio, you're good to go. As you get further from the source of the signal, it gets weaker, until such point that it's too weak to get through the background noise. That's fine for data. As long as you're within range, you receive usable data.

For transmitting energy to charge a device, the same principle exists. As you get further from the source of the signal, it gets weaker. That's not fine for charging purposes. As your device gets further from the source, it receives less energy to recharge the battery, slowing down the charge rate. Meanwhile, you're still broadcasting the full amount at the source, so much or most of that energy is lost to inefficiency. So having a charger that broadcasts throughout the room or house is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. Maybe someone will figure a clever way around the physics of it, but until then, you're not likely to see free-range charging hit the mainstream.
 
The hurdle with wireless charging is (in)efficiency. The signal from WiFi or cell towers or whatever work by transmitting a signal through the radio waves. So long as that signal can be received with a strength that exceeds a minimum signal-to-noise ratio, you're good to go. As you get further from the source of the signal, it gets weaker, until such point that it's too weak to get through the background noise. That's fine for data. As long as you're within range, you receive usable data.

For transmitting energy to charge a device, the same principle exists. As you get further from the source of the signal, it gets weaker. That's not fine for charging purposes. As your device gets further from the source, it receives less energy to recharge the battery, slowing down the charge rate. Meanwhile, you're still broadcasting the full amount at the source, so much or most of that energy is lost to inefficiency. So having a charger that broadcasts throughout the room or house is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. Maybe someone will figure a clever way around the physics of it, but until then, you're not likely to see free-range charging hit the mainstream.

Very useful information. I would assume that 1) We would eventually have charging stations in individual rooms. 2) These stations would be able to detect if there was a device in the room that needed charging, and would only activate based upon those uses, so it's not running 24/7.

I don't see the issue with inefficiency in charging though. If you're sitting on the far side of the room and your phone charges slower than if it would when you sit closer to the charging station, that makes sense. I don't see how that's a deal breaker. It's like saying you have slower download speeds when you have 1/4 bars of wifi as opposed to 3/4 - it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Very useful information. I would assume that 1) We would eventually have charging stations in individual rooms. 2) These stations would be able to detect if there was a device in the room that needed charging, and would only activate based upon those uses, so it's not running 24/7.

I don't see the issue with inefficiency in charging though. If you're sitting on the far side of the room and your phone charges slower than if it would when you sit closer to the charging station, that makes sense. I don't see how that's a deal breaker. It's like saying you have slower download speeds when you have 1/4 bars of wifi as opposed to 3/4 - it makes sense.

You have to think macro, not micro. If a company were to sell a few hundred million devices per year with room-wide wireless proximity chargers that in normal usage end up charging on average at 20% efficiency, that becomes environmentally unconscionable. That's doing a really bad thing for the sake of a very minor convenience that customers really aren't clamoring for.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.