Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Battery life varies with workload and brightness level. Have seen extreme gaming tests reduce iPP battery life to ~4 hours and other things like video editing will also have higher consumption where it'll likely still drain while plugged in. Ideal is designing for worst case consumption and still have it charge or at least doesn't drain while plugged in.

In theory, you are correct. In practice, it will require moving away from lightening port, which is limited around 2.4 A. Not only this will require new cables, it will also take away the ability to charge with USB battery packs.

I know you are a fan of SP4. But MS opt for the same 5V x 2.5A USB charging for their Surface 3. So it becomes a choice of what matters more. I prefer the way it is now with iPP. I see the 2.4 A charging as a feature more than a limitation.
 
I know you are a fan of SP4. But MS opt for the same 5V x 2.5A USB charging for their Surface 3. So it becomes a choice of what matters more. I prefer the way it is now with iPP. I see the 2.4 A charging as a feature more than a limitation.

The Atom x7-Z8700 in the Surface 3 is 2W so less than half if not a third of the A9X power consumption. It probably doesn't hold any records for charging time but at least it doesn't drain while plugged in under load. The iPP at almost double the price should be equal if not better in this regard. Just common sense design and nothing to do with brand preference.
 
The Atom x7-Z8700 in the Surface 3 is 2W so less than half if not a third of the A9X power consumption. It probably doesn't hold any records for charging time but at least it doesn't drain while plugged in under load. The iPP at almost double the price should be equal if not better in this regard. Just common sense design and nothing to do with brand preference.

I supposed we have very different values defining what is "better" and "common sense".

Meanwhile, my 10W iPad Air adapter is charging my iPad Pro fine (battery meter was never dropping) for what I use my iPP for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max(IT)
Not only this will require new cables, it will also take away the ability to charge with USB battery packs.

This isn't really a big issue with USB-C. Already there are USB-C battery packs on the market, with more to come from Anker and Limefuel. In addition, Google's Nexus 5X / 6P / Chromebook Pixel all support the USB-C standard, along with Apple's own retina MacBook. USB-C is meant to be an accepted universal standard across all platforms - there really is little harm in moving towards it.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
This isn't really a big issue with USB-C. Already there are USB-C battery packs on the market, with more to come from Anker and Limefuel. In addition, Google's Nexus 5X / 6P / Chromebook Pixel all support the USB-C standard, along with Apple's own retina MacBook. USB-C is meant to be an accepted universal standard across all platforms - there really is little harm in moving towards it.

USB-C may be the ultimate solution. But until they switch all iPhones and iPads over to USB-C, I am enjoying the ability to share the cables and charges for all my devices.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 12 watt charger come out after one of the new iPads were charging slower than what they liked? I think it was the iPad 4. Anyways, there are new adapters coming out for the new USB3 Lightning port on the iPad Pro. Expect a new charger for it, or a USB C to Lightning cable for the Macbook charger.
 
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 12 watt charger come out after one of the new iPads were charging slower than what they liked? I think it was the iPad 4. Anyways, there are new adapters coming out for the new USB3 Lightning port on the iPad Pro. Expect a new charger for it, or a USB C to Lightning cable for the Macbook charger.
As someone who spends quite a bit of time with the innards of these devices I will tell you I've never seen an iOS device change its maximum input current rating after shipping. I do not think they can do that. I guarantee you this is only getting fixed in the next generation of the iPP.
 
As someone who spends quite a bit of time with the innards of these devices I will tell you I've never seen an iOS device change its maximum input current rating after shipping. I do not think they can do that. I guarantee you this is only getting fixed in the next generation of the iPP.

If the internals are already capable of a higher rate of charge like you said in the first post, why couldn't they release a larger charger (26-28 watt)? We don't really know what's up with the USB3 Lightning spec, but we do know new adapters and cables ARE coming..
 
This isn't really a big issue with USB-C. Already there are USB-C battery packs on the market, with more to come from Anker and Limefuel. In addition, Google's Nexus 5X / 6P / Chromebook Pixel all support the USB-C standard, along with Apple's own retina MacBook. USB-C is meant to be an accepted universal standard across all platforms - there really is little harm in moving towards it.

USB-C can be an answer, but isn't necessarily an answer. The battery pack you linked that's already on the market is limited to output of 15W. While that's a not-huge improvement of 20% over the 12.5W-but-labeled-12W Apple charger, it's more than the increase from the original iPad charger to the newer one. Not surprisingly the announcements from other vendors don't give specs, so we'll see what actually comes out and when they come out. One of the problems with the wide range of acceptable modes in USB-C is that it leads to more user confusion, much the way people were confused when trying to charge iPads and iPhones with 500mW USB ports, except with exponentially more modes of failure.

But basically I agree and personally would like to see USB-C ports and chargers on everything.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Admittedly the market has a long way to go before becoming mature, but I think it is a step in the right direction. A fully reversible connector that is a common standard is awesome, and once the teething problems are over there should be less variations (or at least, variations that the consumer has to worry about).

In my mind I just feel that Apple could have led the charge on this for the iPad Pro. I suppose the "iPad" takes more priority than the "Pro" in this instance. The charging speed isn't terrible, but it feels anaemic after all the recent advances within and without Apple to increase charging speeds.

USB-C can be an answer, but isn't necessarily an answer. The battery pack you linked that's already on the market is limited to output of 15W. While that's a not-huge improvement of 20% over the 12.5W-but-labeled-12W Apple charger, it's more than the increase from the original iPad charger to the newer one. Not surprisingly the announcements from other vendors don't give specs, so we'll see what actually comes out and when they come out. One of the problems with the wide range of acceptable modes in USB-C is that it leads to more user confusion, much the way people were confused when trying to charge iPads and iPhones with 500mW USB ports, except with exponentially more modes of failure.

But basically I agree and personally would like to see USB-C ports and chargers on everything.
 
If the internals are already capable of a higher rate of charge like you said in the first post, why couldn't they release a larger charger (26-28 watt)? We don't really know what's up with the USB3 Lightning spec, but we do know new adapters and cables ARE coming..
Well, I don't know for sure obviously. But I can tell you that there are two separate parameters in the power management unit. One is for the DESIRED charging speed (which is 5560mA), and one is for the maximum allowed input current on the Lightning port (which is 2400mA). I don't think this version of the iPP can handle anything beyond 2400mA.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that this is a reason to not get an iPP. I for one love mine. It just doesn't charge very quickly... :(
 
Well, I don't know for sure obviously. But I can tell you that there are two separate parameters in the power management unit. One is for the DESIRED charging speed (which is 5560mA), and one is for the maximum allowed input current on the Lightning port (which is 2400mA). I don't think this version of the iPP can handle anything beyond 2400mA.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that this is a reason to not get an iPP. I for one love mine. It just doesn't charge very quickly... :(

Well, I'm going to wait to see what this Lightning port can handle, as it's NOT the same Lightning port that is on the iPhone or the other iPads.
 
The Surface Pro is a laptop design, not a tablet. So comparing it to an ARM tablet is not a great one. But the main issue here is that while the Pro really does need a beefier charger, Apple painted themselves into a corner with lightning cable design, IMO.



Probably not. Moving more current requires a thicker gauge wire to not be a fire hazard. I would wager that you'd need a thicker gauge than what Apple used in Lightning cables to go much higher than 2.4A. The real risk is that you could have "supported" and "unsupported" cables where one is a fire risk while the other isn't. Or limit old cables, and have users not understand why you shouldn't charge with one or the other.
So can they use a higher voltage? Like 9v or even 12v. I think android's quick charge utilizes either 9 or 12v
With 9v 2.4amp, it 21.6w, should be enough for iPad pro, with 12v it would be about 30w.

One good thing about lightning is that apple owns it, so unlike USB, you have to go through a painful process to have s standard recognized by everyone, Apple can do whatever the hell they want to lightning, and fast. If they really want they can push out a newer version of lightning in months
 
Yup. Easily done with USB-PD like the Macbooks, although I believe the next higher voltage profile is 12v.
 
I just purchased this charger for my iPad Pro. It seems to charge the device a little bit faster but it's hard to tell by how much. Will this charger shorten the life of the battery or damage the device in any way? Is there a better third party solution to get faster charging on the device? Thanks very much for the help
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I just purchased this charger for my iPad Pro. It seems to charge the device a little bit faster but it's hard to tell by how much. Will this charger shorten the life of the battery or damage the device in any way? Is there a better third party solution to get faster charging on the device? Thanks very much for the help

Up to 2.4A per port. That is 12W and same as your stock charger, as least based on specs.

You will be able to charge up to 3 iPP simultaneously at full speed though :)
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Like
Reactions: A.R.E.A.M.
How long does the iPad Pro take to charge from zero? If this is a 12 hour charge situation, that's probably a deal breaker for me getting one of these. My regular iPads already can take up to 6 hours.
 
So can they use a higher voltage? Like 9v or even 12v. I think android's quick charge utilizes either 9 or 12v
With 9v 2.4amp, it 21.6w, should be enough for iPad pro, with 12v it would be about 30w.

One good thing about lightning is that apple owns it, so unlike USB, you have to go through a painful process to have s standard recognized by everyone, Apple can do whatever the hell they want to lightning, and fast. If they really want they can push out a newer version of lightning in months

So, it doesn't really work this way. Wattage is a measure of power, sure, but it is current that charges a battery. Not voltage. 5V is fine for charging the 3.3V batteries that are used in the iPad. Upping it to 9V doesn't change anything so long as you can only draw 2.4A. You can have fun with transformers, where 9V @ 2.4A flows over the cable, and then you down step the voltage which gives you more current to play with, but then you are talking about needing two power transformers (which aren't small). One at the wall, and one in the iPad itself on the other side of the lightning cable.

And again, this is all somewhat moot as lightning as a spec assumes 5V on the bus voltage pin(s), and I'm not sure how well protected existing devices would be from over voltage to avoid drawing more current than anticipated. I would hope they are, but usually you don't write a spec for voltage and then violate it later. It is a bit like crossing the streams.

What is hopeful though is that the Pro does have more pins in its lightning port than the iPad Air 2 (i just took a look at both). The Air only has pins on one side of the port, while the Pro has them on both. This is probably what enables the future USB3 support. And it may also enable faster charging by being able to pull more current across multiple pins. That is part of the secret to USB3's faster charging. But even that needs a new cable. Yay.
 
So, it doesn't really work this way. Wattage is a measure of power, sure, but it is current that charges a battery. Not voltage. 5V is fine for charging the 3.3V batteries that are used in the iPad. Upping it to 9V doesn't change anything so long as you can only draw 2.4A. You can have fun with transformers, where 9V @ 2.4A flows over the cable, and then you down step the voltage which gives you more current to play with, but then you are talking about needing two power transformers (which aren't small). One at the wall, and one in the iPad itself on the other side of the lightning cable.

And again, this is all somewhat moot as lightning as a spec assumes 5V on the bus voltage pin(s), and I'm not sure how well protected existing devices would be from over voltage to avoid drawing more current than anticipated. I would hope they are, but usually you don't write a spec for voltage and then violate it later. It is a bit like crossing the streams.

What is hopeful though is that the Pro does have more pins in its lightning port than the iPad Air 2 (i just took a look at both). The Air only has pins on one side of the port, while the Pro has them on both. This is probably what enables the future USB3 support. And it may also enable faster charging by being able to pull more current across multiple pins. That is part of the secret to USB3's faster charging. But even that needs a new cable. Yay.

Do you know that 5V is a fixed part of the spec or are you just guessing? There's also a lot of speculation that lightning is very dynamic and could allow power to be carried over several pins, not just one pair. I also don't think any extra pins would be needed to implement usb3 since the lightning connector wasn't trying to maintain physical compatibility with usb 2.0.
 
Last edited:
So, it doesn't really work this way. Wattage is a measure of power, sure, but it is current that charges a battery. Not voltage.

Not sure if you're trying to oversimplify things to much so your statement doesn't make much sense, or if you don't understand battery technology. Did you mean "more voltage" doesn't make the battery charge faster? Because if you don't have at least the charging voltage of the battery, in most cases the current isn't going to matter.

5V is fine for charging the 3.3V batteries that are used in the iPad. Upping it to 9V doesn't change anything so long as you can only draw 2.4A. You can have fun with transformers, where 9V @ 2.4A flows over the cable, and then you down step the voltage which gives you more current to play with, but then you are talking about needing two power transformers (which aren't small). One at the wall, and one in the iPad itself on the other side of the lightning cable.

Well the point is the charging circuitry is in the device. If the charging circuitry is designed to accept higher voltage at lower current and convert it to more current at lower voltage, then that's what it will do. I think any first-year electrical engineering student can create solid-state circuitry to raise and lower voltages without transformers.

And again, this is all somewhat moot as lightning as a spec assumes 5V on the bus voltage pin(s), and I'm not sure how well protected existing devices would be from over voltage to avoid drawing more current than anticipated. I would hope they are, but usually you don't write a spec for voltage and then violate it later.

You would be the first person I've had knowledge of that knows what the Lightning specs are. Can you elaborate more on their contents? I've tried a long time to find the voltage and current limits and no one could tell me the specified limitations. Lightning devices started out small (1A iPhone 5 in September 2012) and then went up (2.4A iPad 4 later in 2012) and if Apple hasn't outlined the limits, it might be higher than we know.

And it may also enable faster charging by being able to pull more current across multiple pins. That is part of the secret to USB3's faster charging. But even that needs a new cable. Yay.

Actually USB 3.0 just increased the current on the existing VBus pin, except for the rarely-seen powered-B connector which uses more pins for power. This is why an otherwise-USB 2.0 device that pulls more current than what's normally allowed by USB 2.0 (such as an external hard disk with a USB 2.0 cable, an iPhone 5, or an iPad) can get more power from a USB 3.0 port even though using a USB 2.0-type connector on the cable.

But yeah, additional signal paths in the newer Lightning connector allow additional dynamically assigned uses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eau Rouge
Do you know that 5V is a fixed part of the spec or are you just guessing? There's also a lot of speculation that lightning is very dynamic and could allow power to be carried over several pins, not just one pair. I also don't think any extra pins would be needed to implement usb3 since the lightning connector wasn't trying to maintain physical compatibility with usb 2.0.

It is an educated guess. Things like voltage are messy. Variable voltage needs to be managed well, which means more complexity to something that is already complex. USB PD requires a negotiation handshake and circuitry to handle the variable voltage. Neither of these reside in the cable, and so you tend to need cables built for whatever current this might wind up entailing.

But here's the thing, let's assume I am 100% wrong and Apple can push 12V on the pin in a similar way. Hooking up more voltage to a 3.3V battery does nothing for your charge speed. Charge speed is entirely determined by current. So if you've upped the voltage, but still can't move more than 2.4A across the wire because the wire is too thin to carry more, you've fiddled with things for zero gain. Input voltage is determined by the battery voltage you want to charge. 12V on USB C is important because laptop batteries tend to be ~8-11V to run the 5V circuitry. ARM gets away with 3.3V which is more flexible in mobile devices.

The other problem is that yes you do need more pins for USB3 (and the iPad Pro has them). Data speed is a mix of a couple things:
1) How many pins you have for data (each pin transmits one bit per clock cycle)
2) How fast your clock is

And contrary to what a lot of non-engineers tend to believe, you can't just push the clock speed over the wire higher and higher. You get more and more noise that screws up your signal, crosstalk, and other fun things because fast moving electrons generate magnetic fields that then mess up how other fast moving electrons travel. So to get the sort of data USB3 pushes, they had to add more pins to carry data. That reversible USB C connector? USB 3 uses both sides. And if lightning wants to carry USB3 over it, it is going to need to do one of two things:
1) Use both sides of the plug to double the pin count.
2) Use an expensive active cable where it converts USB 3 into something proprietary, running at a higher clock speed with fewer pins to talk with the iPad itself.

And if you look inside the lightning port on the iPad Pro, and compare it to the Air 2, the Pro has connections for both sides of the lightning cable, while the Air 2 only has connections for one side. So it's pretty clear Apple went with #1.
 
Not sure if you're trying to oversimplify things to much so your statement doesn't make much sense, or if you don't understand battery technology. Did you mean "more voltage" doesn't make the battery charge faster? Because if you don't have at least the charging voltage of the battery, in most cases the current isn't going to matter.

I was pointing out that upping wattage by upping voltage while leaving current constant buys you nothing when trying to charge a battery, as the poster suggested that I was responding to (9/12V with 2.4A).

Well the point is the charging circuitry is in the device. If the charging circuitry is designed to accept higher voltage at lower current and convert it to more current at lower voltage, then that's what it will do. I think any first-year electrical engineering student can create solid-state circuitry to raise and lower voltages without transformers.

Except to actually get the current adjustment that goes with it, you need induction. Induction to convert voltage/current while maintaining power is called a transformer. :)

You would be the first person I've had knowledge of that knows what the Lightning specs are. Can you elaborate more on their contents? I've tried a long time to find the voltage and current limits and no one could tell me the specified limitations. Lightning devices started out small (1A iPhone 5 in September 2012) and then went up (2.4A iPad 4 later in 2012) and if Apple hasn't outlined the limits, it might be higher than we know.

It is an educated guess. They could do something squirrely, but it still buys them zilch unless the wire itself can actually help carry the extra amperage. And if it can, they don't need to up the voltage anyways, 5V is what you want to charge the batteries in iDevices.
 
I've been using the Anker IQ Charger and it definitely sped up the charge time. The mini brick that came with the iPad Pro is still in it's wrapper..
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.R.E.A.M.
I've been using the Anker IQ Charger and it definitely sped up the charge time. The mini brick that came with the iPad Pro is still in it's wrapper..
I haven't tested that Anker model, but I find that extremely unlikely. Take the Apple brick out of its wrapper and you'll find that the Apple brick charges at the exact same speed. I'll even give you a free coupon to my app so you can post the actual charging speeds with both chargers.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.