Yes that would be indeed a bummer for a lot of people. Luckily mine is wireless and you have those wireless adapters which would also be good in your c
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.
The iPhone 14 Is Unlikely to Be Portless, Here's Why
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I prepared already for portless design by buying a carlinkit adapter which works fine for my sharan.
Considering wireless carplay was announced 6 years ago, auto manufactures have had sufficient time to transition. Their heel-dragging shouldn't be on Apple. If anything, removing ports would motivate the remaining brands to update their new cars while calling attention to brands that have failed to provide their customers with modern conveniences.
Last edited:
And what makes you think that the phones of the future will require nearly as much power? What if I only need to wirelessly charge 100mA to get my portable communication device through the day, and the charging points under every seat do the job or it takes 10 second of charging on a pad to do this. Or just beamed at me, I don't know.
It's bizarre to think that only the wireless charging is the bit that gets futuristic if we are trying to predict the future. Other tech around it is going to evolve as well.
My gripe isn't about how or when technological leaps it will happen, but we know they will. And to throw such tantrums about losing ports is so childish. They are just a means to an end. If we figure out another way to do it, great.
Maybe in a couple of years time, a newer version of MagSafe will come which will allow for data transfer. Then we could see a portless iPhone.
I'm just as worried about what to do if the phone needs to be recovered after a software glitch.
It's faster than USB 2.0 which is what all iPhones still use (only the iPad Pro does USB 3.0 over Lightning)
How much energy is really being wasted? Apple's MagSafe and all Qi charging simply trickle charges all devices once they approach full capacity. How is that any different from wired charging? All iPhones spend most of their lives trickle charging on a wired or wireless charger.
Exactly. The author jumped from BT to 60.5 GHz and completely ignored the Wi-Fi standards and chips that are already supported by Apple and are faster, cheaper and ubiquitous as ad-hoc devices.
Ironic isn't it? Wasting energy is okay, but having chargers/cables end up in landfills is not okay.
The proposals only cover devices using wired, not wireless, chargers, EU commissioner Thierry Breton said in a press conference, adding that “there is plenty of room for innovation on wireless.”
Plenty of room for energy loss, too. 25% energy loss in fact.
Last edited:
wired charging is ~ 95% efficient whereas wireless is ~ 70-75% max.
in other words/numbers and my numbers are for illustration only:
100W comes out of you wall, 95W go into your device - wired
100W comes out of your wall, 70-75W go into your device - wireless
It depends on the implementation. The issue is how much energy is lost between the charger and the phone. Qi can be really bad, up to double the Watt-hours to achieve the same charge as a cable. MagSafe is more efficient and solves the user-generated issue of off-center connection requiring even more energy from the charger - but it's still about 47% more energy than a cable.
There are a few ways to combat this with the two biggest ones being improved wireless transfer efficiency and decreased power demand by phones.
This is very true but the author failed to recognize the basic fact that if/when Apple releases a portless phone that nothing will change for existing users. Apple will likely introduce a portless iPhone alongside other new models that still contain ports just like they released the iPhone X alongside other new models that still relied upon TouchID. This gives users a few release cycles to get the latest phone and still use their wired peripherals with no issue. Over these years, audio and music peripheral makers will also be updating their devices to support Apple's new wireless data standard. If Apple doesn't convince them to support it, the users can still rely on their older devices and peripherals to work over a wired connection - Any pro today relying on a proprietary platform or technology will tell you that they already have a dedicated legacy device already allocated for that purpose and a backup plan for if/when they can no longer support or update their existing workflow. Again, nothing really changes except that after a few years, some peripheral users might start to feel left out and want the latest iPhone and also be able to use that device for a wired connection. If that market is big enough, there will be other options from both Apple and 3rd party peripherals. If the market is not big enough, Apple will watch those customers move to Android and welcome 100x more new customers that prefer the simplicity and elegance of a portless iPhone.
I would also have a problem with carplay - and it isn't just the carplay portion but also charging. I don't have room in my car for a wireless carplay and wireless charger adapter. I'm not buying a new car just to support my Apple device.
Also, when you travel, at least where I go they don't really have wireless chargers everywhere as they do have plugs you can use. Can I use wireless, charging even, on an airplane?
I love the fact that Apple said they were saving the environment, and money by eliminating charging bricks with new phones but since they have changed the cables end from USB-A to USB-C you have to get a new brick to use the new cables/charging speed.
Can't say I wouldn't buy a port-less phone but I'd be a lot less likely to
Also, when you travel, at least where I go they don't really have wireless chargers everywhere as they do have plugs you can use. Can I use wireless, charging even, on an airplane?
I love the fact that Apple said they were saving the environment, and money by eliminating charging bricks with new phones but since they have changed the cables end from USB-A to USB-C you have to get a new brick to use the new cables/charging speed.
Can't say I wouldn't buy a port-less phone but I'd be a lot less likely to
I guess you're right in terms of basic math and physics. However, like solar panels and battery capacities, wireless charging does get slightly more efficient with each iteration so as the efficiency gap between the two narrows, I think most energy efficiency experts would turn their concerns to more power hungry appliances and vehicles that waste much more energy per consumer than a wirelessly charging phone.
Pretty sure it will never be as efficient as wired charging. 25% energy loss will be as efficient as we will get when transferring energy through air.
They could always make a variation of the iPad's keyboard connector. Make it magnetic so a dock is not needed, and have more contacts if needed. It would be waterproof and unobtrusive if made on the edge somewhere (then a doc could be used if wanted). They already have the tech.
Exactly but I'm not arguing against the basic physics. Other efficiencies (improved battery capacity, faster charging times and more power efficient phones) will take up the slack on wireless inefficiencies. All technology balances user convenience with user needs. Wireless is already too convenient for most to be dismissed as inefficient by consumers and they have the final say on what technology is going to stick around.
This comparison reminds me of greenhouse gases. Agricultural sources make up about 10-15% of production and so many have claimed that economic impact isn't worth targeting that source when other sources would have a greater environmental impact. But those values are still something, so some people continue to explore them. As a result, we now know that feeding the seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis to cows reduces their methane release to near zero. Adding this to all cow's diets would be equivalent to the US no longer driving cars. The issue is, farming the seaweed is difficult and the wild population isn't sufficient. We have a solution, but we need to make it viable.
You are right that phones don't use that much power compared to other consumer goods, but the sheer number of them makes their impact relevant. We have solutions to the energy demand by phones, but it's going to be difficult to implement.
Gigastone uses lightning and I totally need that to offload media when traveling and as backup without stuffing iCloud. And the micro SD solution plugs into my Mac - I do not need wireless charging. I also have some Mic gear that requires the lightning now that audio port is history. Boo.
Ever since Apple removed the headphone jack on the iPhone 7 in 2016, rumors have swirled that Apple eventually aims to ditch the Lightning port next for a completely portless design. Indeed, analysts originally predicted that the highest-end iPhone 13 would offer a "completely wireless experience." Of course, that didn't happen, but a portless iPhone 14 in 2022 looks just as unlikely, for the following reasons.
Apple's longtime goal has been to design an iPhone with no external ports or buttons for a clean, streamlined device, but significant hurdles still remain if it intends to provide a completely wireless charging and data transfer solution. As far as data is concerned, Apple would need to look beyond Bluetooth because of its bandwidth limitations and rely on a faster wireless protocol that allows iPhone data transfer at a speed that either matches or exceeds Lightning, otherwise the loss of the port would be seen as a backward step.
In fact, Apple has already developed such a protocol. MacRumors recently discovered that Apple Watch Series 7 models are equipped with a module that enables 60.5GHz wireless data transfer when placed on a proprietary magnetic dock with a corresponding 60.5GHz module. Apple probably doesn't advertise this capability because it's for internal use only. For example, Apple Store staff may use the dock to wirelessly restore an Apple Watch. It's unclear how fast its wireless data transfer is, but our understanding is that USB 2.0 speeds up to 480 Mbps might be possible. In other words, Lightning speed.
However, it's not just data transfer that would need to be achieved wirelessly. With no Lightning port, you wouldn't be able to physically connect your iPhone directly to a computer to reset an unresponsive iPhone through recovery mode. Unless Apple came up with an alternative at-home solution – a second iteration of MagSafe with high-speed data transfer capabilities, perhaps – the iPhone would have to go back to the Apple Store every time an over-air update or full device restore failed and borked the device, meaning more irritation and inconvenience for end users.
For argument's sake, let's say Apple introduced "MagSafe 2.0" alongside a portless iPhone 14 and solved these data/recovery issues. The existing MagSafe Charger provides up to 15W of peak power delivery (or 12W on the iPhone 12 mini and iPhone 13 mini) and charges a compatible iPhone less than half as fast as a wired 20W USB-C charger, so any new version of MagSafe would have to ramp up the juice considerably in order to come close to existing cable speeds.
Admittedly, Apple could probably pull off this feat (assuming it has shaken off its AirPower woes). You only have to look at its rivals to see what's already possible. Both the Google Pixel 6 and 6 Pro support up to 21W and 23W wireless charging speeds, respectively, while the OnePlus 9 Pro boasts 50W wireless charging speeds thanks to its next-generation Warp charger, which is capable of charging a dead phone to full power in 43 minutes. That's faster than an iPhone plugged directly into a 20W charger. Xiaomi is another leader in the field – the 5000mAh battery in its Mi 11 Ultra phone can be charged from 0% to 100% inside 30 minutes, wirelessly.
Yet despite these speed gains in wireless charging, an oft-overlooked problem is its generally poor energy efficiency. In 2020, Eric Ravenscraft of Debugger found that wireless charging uses around 47% more power than wired charging for the same amount of power. Unless Apple surprised us with a new version of MagSafe boasting unprecedented energy efficiency, ditching the Lightning port would surely run counter to its much-touted environmental policy.
And that's not the only eco-problem Apple would be inviting upon itself by going portless. Speaking out in 2020 against EU deliberations on requiring a universal port across all mobile devices, Apple said that removing the Lightning port from the iPhone would "create an unprecedented amount of electronic waste." It's not hard to see how this line of argument could be turned against Apple if it launched a portless iPhone in 2022. It would make millions of existing Lightning cables, charging docks, and other adapters in the wild obsolete overnight and ready for the trash.
Of course, Apple could perhaps satisfy the European Commission by adopting USB-C, but that would just be swapping out one connector for another, committing the company to another cable standard for longer. Apple would effectively be kicking its vision of a portless iPhone further into the long grass. Indeed, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo predicts Apple will retain the Lightning connector on the iPhone for the "foreseeable future," and has no intention of switching to USB-C, which has a lower water specification than Lightning. As Kuo rightly notes, such a move would also be detrimental to Apple's profitable MFi business, which is why he believes Apple is more likely to switch directly to a portless model rather than first change to USB-C.
Given these interlacing obstacles, in spite of some iPhone 14 rumors, we expect Apple's next smartphone to continue to use Lightning ports with the option of MagSafe, until a more viable wireless charging solution comes along that allows for a portless iPhone design without the attendant disadvantages. So when could that be? Frankly, it's hard to say.
Back in 2016, Apple was rumored to be partnering with Energous to deliver a "true wireless charging" solution, but nothing has come from it so far. Apple is still believed to be researching new wireless charging technologies, and with the advent of MagSafe, the company is clearly still interested in innovating new ways to power devices without the mess of cables. How long we'll have to wait for one that powers a portless iPhone remains unknown.
Article Link: The iPhone 14 Is Unlikely to Be Portless, Here's Why
Lightning port is not going anywhere soon. There’s really no advantage to to give up their lightning cord and charger sales
However I do think the SIM card tray will go and E-sim will be the way forward this will free up more room for batteries
I can actually say from experience that using a E-sim is simple easy to install and gets the same service if not better from a carrier
However I do think the SIM card tray will go and E-sim will be the way forward this will free up more room for batteries
I can actually say from experience that using a E-sim is simple easy to install and gets the same service if not better from a carrier