Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,464
17,802


Images of transparent prototype AirPods and a 29W Apple power adapter have been shared on Twitter by Apple device collector Giulio Zompetti.

airpods-prototype-translucent.jpg

The prototypes, which appear to be either first-generation or second-generation AirPods, feature clear plastic along the stem and around the outer side of the earbud, with the normal white plastic on the inner side of the earbud. Transparent casings are sometimes used for prototypes to allow engineers to see directly into the device.

Apple has been known to use transparent casings for prototypes dating back to the Macintosh Classic. Other Apple device prototypes, such as for the Macintosh Portable and Newton have emerged over the years, but this is the first time that the striking transparent casing has been seen on an Apple device as recent and as compact as AirPods.

Observers may perceive some coincidental similarities between these prototype AirPods and the design of Nothing's "Ear (1)" true wireless earbuds, which are positioned as a low-cost AirPods Pro competitor.

Last week, Zompetti shared images of a prototype Apple 29W charger with a transparent casing. The 29W power adapter came with the 12-inch MacBook, but was discontinued with that machine in 2018 and replaced with a 30W adapter.



Zompetti is an avid collector of Apple prototype devices and has previously shared images of an Apple Watch Series 3 prototype with additional connectors, an original iPad with two 30-pin ports, an iPhone 12 Pro prototype, a third-generation iPod touch with a rear camera, rare original Apple Watch prototypes, and most notably, a working AirPower prototype.

Article Link: Transparent AirPods and 29W Power Adapter Prototypes Surface in Photos
 
Last edited:

adamjackson

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2008
2,251
4,346
I want smaller power adapters. The 140 watt brick from Apple is pretty laughable. I have a 65 Watt GAN II from Anker well I have 3 of them and they're very tiny and they charge all of my devices wicked fast. Why Apple hasn't miniaturized everything has to come down to money. They can make much smaller power bricks.
 

gaximus

macrumors 68000
Oct 11, 2011
1,634
2,773
I want smaller power adapters. The 140 watt brick from Apple is pretty laughable. I have a 65 Watt GAN II from Anker well I have 3 of them and they're very tiny and they charge all of my devices wicked fast. Why Apple hasn't miniaturized everything has to come down to money. They can make much smaller power bricks.
How much did those cost you?
 

adamjackson

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2008
2,251
4,346
How much did those cost you?

They were $40 a piece. They's insanely small like the size of a 15W apple adapter and we use them on the MacBook Air, iPad Pro, iPhones, AirPods and more. Every device Apple makes has a ceiling on how much watts it can take but plugging a watch into it feels like an instant charge it's sort of unreal so like in an airport you can get your iPhone 0-60% in no time then top off the watch and you're ready for a long flight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaximus

Chaos215bar2

macrumors regular
Jan 11, 2004
157
183
I want smaller power adapters. The 140 watt brick from Apple is pretty laughable. I have a 65 Watt GAN II from Anker well I have 3 of them and they're very tiny and they charge all of my devices wicked fast. Why Apple hasn't miniaturized everything has to come down to money. They can make much smaller power bricks.
You don’t think the 140W adapter might be larger because it’s able to provide more than double the power of your 65W adapters?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bow Commander

adamjackson

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2008
2,251
4,346
You don’t think the 140W adapter might be larger because it’s able to provide more than double the power of your 65W adapters?

  1. Anker 65W: 1.65 x 1.42 x 1.74 (4 ounces)
  2. Apple 140W: ‎5.52 x 4.64 x 1.28 inches (12 ounces)
  3. Anker is 4.07 cubic inches
  4. Apple's is 32.7 cubic inches
  5. Apple's weighs 3 times as much.
  6. Apple's charger has about 60% more wattage but is 3x heavier.
  7. apple's charger is 8 times larger than Anker's by cubic inches
electronics aren't always a matter of multiplication as a linear curve but apple's is a GAN I charger and Anker's is GAN II that's why it's smaller. I'm challenging Apple who is selling a charger that costs $99 instead of $39 to at least only be double the size of Anker's versus 3X the size and that comes through Apple adopting better design. I think Apple can make their charger smaller and chose not to for price reasons.

There are GAN II 100W adapters out there that are much smaller than Apple's and all I'd lose is, at peak performance, the apple laptop would discharge slightly. I think that's what I'll have to do as Apple's brick is just too large for travel.
 
Last edited:

Chaos215bar2

macrumors regular
Jan 11, 2004
157
183
electronics aren't always a matter of multiplication as a linear curve but apple's is a GAN I charger and Anker's is GAN II that's why it's smaller. I'm challenging Apple who is selling a charger that costs $99 instead of $39 to at least only be double the size of Anker's versus 3X the size and that comes through Apple adopting better design. I think Apple can make their charger smaller and chose not to for price reasons.

There are GAN II 100W adapters out there that are much smaller than Apple's and all I'd lose is, at peak performance, the apple laptop would discharge slightly. I think that's what I'll have to do as Apple's brick is just too large for travel.
I can’t speak to the weight and size differences (there are a number of explanations that could go either in Apple’s or Anker’s favor, and indeed things don’t necessarily scale linearly), but FWIW, GaN II doesn’t actually appear to be a technical thing. It looks like it’s just a marketing term from Anker.

Just to be pedantic, 140W is about 115% more wattage than 65W, not 60%.
 
Last edited:

adamjackson

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2008
2,251
4,346
I can’t speak to the weight and size differences (there are a number of explanations that could go either in Apple’s or Anker’s favor, and indeed things don’t necessarily scale linearly), but FWIW, GaN II doesn’t actually appear to be a technical thing. It looks like it’s just a marketing term from Anker.
Just to be pedantic, 140W is about 115% more wattage than 65W, not 60%.
 

adamjackson

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2008
2,251
4,346
I can’t speak to the weight and size differences (there are a number of explanations that could go either in Apple’s or Anker’s favor, and indeed things don’t necessarily scale linearly), but FWIW, GaN II doesn’t actually appear to be a technical thing. It looks like it’s just a marketing term from Anker.

Just to be pedantic, 140W is about 115% more wattage than 65W, not 60%.

I barely passed high school so my entire post was doing my absolute best to compare the two. Thanks for the fix though. I do appreciate it. I was hoping people would check my math. My point has been that Apple can make their chargers smaller. They just choose not to for cost reasons. The anker nano 65W shows me that Apple can shrink this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viss

Chaos215bar2

macrumors regular
Jan 11, 2004
157
183
They just choose not to for cost reasons. The Anker nano 65W shows me that Apple can shrink this stuff.
I don’t mean to throw any shade on Anker, since they do seem to make reliable products (several of which I own and use regularly), but have you considered that the two companies might be building their products to somewhat different standards? Smaller does not necessarily mean more expensive to build or higher quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adamjackson
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.