Apple might be shopping wireless charging chips from MediaTek for upcoming iPhone accessories

According to China's Economic Daily News, Apple has requested wireless charging chip samples from Taiwanese semiconductor powerhouse MediaTek...
This is a discussion for a news article. To read the whole news, click here

45 Comments

37. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Remove the sockets? Are you serious? So is this magical wireless charging network going to run your fridge, stove, water heater and TV too? Join me back in reality won't you? Right, because once you get on the highway, it will still work right? There's nothing wrong with technological advancements, but there's realistic and there's pipe dreams. Sure, except that instead of paying that 20 euro price to have a charger and cord when you buy your phone, now you'll have (as you mentioned previously) a 5-10 euro a month fee to support this network. So say you upgrade every year, and have to pay that 20 euro extra for the charger and cable, or you pay 60-120 euro to not. That really sound like a better value to you? If you think that'll work, I'll share an example of a similar thing we need to have. While it was still somewhat available around 20 years ago, back in the 50s gas stations had full service stations. What that means is when you pulled up to buy gas, anywhere from 1 to 4 guys came out. One filled your tank, one cleaned your windshield, one would check your oil, and one would check your air pressure. It added to the cost per gallon of the gas you bought, and fell out of favor somewhere in the 70s or 80s for the most part. Now that's having your gas filled, windshield cleaned, oil and tire pressures checked for a few cents more per gallon. So given that, why is anyone going to pay 5-10 euros a month for the convenience to not have to plug in their phone once or twice a day?

38. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

We have a lot of roads that could be used to harvest solar energy :). Yes, I would gladly pay 10 euro / month for never needing to plug in any electronic device (it's like you're telling me that a 1k euro bicycle is better than a 15k motorcycle, because it's cheaper and it cost less to use it).

39. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

And they'll be able to transmit that energy if your driving at highway speeds? Ok then. There's a big problem with your analogy. A motorcycle will give you up to 5 times the speed and probably the same in difference in range. Add to that the toll taken on a body travelling long distances, and the correct becomes clear. Wireless however isn't isn't as efficient as wired and never will be, due to the differences between a direct connection and inductive or wireless transmission. So you're paying more money for less efficiency. Where with the bicycle/motorcycle analogy, you're paying more but also getting more.

40. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Someday they might. I wouldn't care about efficiency when the energy would come from renewable sources (it's not like we're warring out the sun or we're wasting the wind), I would care more about the benefits of never having to plug in the devices.

41. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Someday we might learn the ability to fly and be omnipotent too. The benefits of never having to plug in the devices. That tells me quite a bit about you.

42. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Do you know one of the conditions of 4G standard? The ability to have a internet connection while moving (with a train). 20 years ago that was unheard of and 20 years is a very small period of time. If we can do that with wi-fi, why couldn't we replicate the process with electricity?

43. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Wireless communication transmission is a lot different than this would be. Things like cellular, TV, and radio transmission are meant to go long distances. But for that, they also have to make sure they don't interfere with the normal operation of other devices not using those transmissions. And for this to work as you want it to, aka long range wireless charging, where in the frequency spectrum are they going to put it. They re already in a spot because everything wants to use frequency spectrum to run wirelessly, to the point that governing bodies are auctioning off spectrum from recently disbanded tech. But they're running out of space. Because there are different requirements for each. All WiFi has to do is allow communication between two devices, and all those devices have to do is be able to interpret the data coming in. With wireless charging, they have to do that, plus be able to transmit voltage and the device has to receive it. It's horribly inefficient, because wired charging is like filling a bucket with a hose. Wireless is like trying to fill a bucket with a steamer, it's non directional and isn't beamed right to the device. It's very much the same as WiFi in that regard. WiFi is usable, but you're not going to get the same speeds as a wired connection. Wireless charging on a scale you're thinking is cost prohibitive, the back haul isn't the same as community locations and data back haul. It's like adding a second power grid on top of the existing one. The spectrum allocation is going to be a problem because they're already running out due to everyone wanting everything wireless, and there are only so many usable frequencies before they start infringing on others. And the amount of transmitters required would be staggering. It would be akin to getting rid of the cellular networks and replacing them with WiFi, assuming wireless charging could ever reach that effective range of operation. WiFi signal range is measured in feet, cellular is measured in miles. That's a huge difference. I'd guarantee if you asked most people if they'd think it was worth it to do all of this so they wouldn't have to plug in a device, they wouldn't bother. People aren't going to want to pay taxes to implement it, and companies wanting to self fund it would have to determine if the risk is worth it, will everyone, not just a few people, want to pay to do something they can already do with little effort for free.

44. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Wireless communication is only an analogy. We already have wireless charging today, we just have to make a system where the device doesn't have to touch the charging pad to get power (Maglev trains don't touch the tracks but they get all the energy they need). Again with money (I see an obsession here); isn't US spending billions every year to send rockets to the Moon and to Mars? How much money do the churches get every year (donations and governement financial aid)? How much do we spend on guns? So please don't tell me there is no money to make our lives better.

45. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

But the premise is correct. High power transmissions are not safe for people and not feasible due to so much energy wasted. In your home with a range of a few feet is one thing, and you're the only one footing the bill since you want it. Forcing everyone else to pay for it because the charging port has been removed and there's no way to charge it outside of the home is quite another thing entirely. And they're working on it, however the range is a few feet and meant for in home use, not a range of hundreds of feet. The reason money is an issue is because that is what's needed to fund this little operation you want everyone to undertake. They haven't been sending rockets to the moon or Mars for quite awhile now. Churches don't get government financial aid, they get tax free status because they're a charity and that along with those donations go to humanitarian efforts. Should we stop feeding people who can't afford to feed themselves and do this instead? Guns are bought by individuals, they choose to buy them. Government entities buy them to enforce laws and defend the nation's of the world. You're assuming that everyone wants this. I don't because plugging a charger is one of the least taxing undertakings I do in a day. And IMHO it's pointless to start paying for something I can do for nothing. Doing this won't enrich anyone's lives, it won't save anyone's lives, it's merely a convenience and not one that really will change anyone's life. You act like doing this will be groundbreaking, when in fact it will only remove one tiny action from our daily lives. It certainly isn't worth the billions it will cost to implement.

46. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I was also talking about a distance of a few meters (lightning poles - sidewalk) for starters. I highly doubt the churches in US don't get government financing (because almost everywhere in the world they do); if you haven't sent a rocket to the moon for some time, why did the budget increased year by year? And people who can't afford to feed themselves should be helped to be able to do that, they shouldn't be fed. Sory, there's no way in hell I will believe there's no money for this thing. You're missing the big picture: today there are the phones that won't be needing charging but tomorrow there could be all the cars (wouldn't be nice to have electric cars that charge themselves from the roads? How much money would the world save when the number of people that die today because of the gas resulting from petrol cars won't die anymore, how much money would we save by no more spending to treat petroleum related diseases? And this is only the beggining of what we can accomplish. People don't want that? Fk them, people still want 3.5 mm jacks, people are dumb!

47. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Yeah, now think about how many transmitters you're talking about if you're putting it on light poles. I think I would know, my uncle was a priest. In the US there is a separation of church and state, they stay out of the churches affairs, and vice versa. No actually, it hasn't increased. So we should what, create jobs out of thin air for these people? So now you're going to start dictating to charities how they dole out their money? Because you want your charging so you don't have to plug in the big bad cable. If you want it so bad, pay for it yourself. Right, so there won't be any deaths because of car accidents anymore because they don't use petroleum, except that most car accident deaths are due to impact injuries, not fire or explosions. Is petroleum related diseases that big of an issue? Really, because you're asking this to be paid with their money, and again you want to dictate how other people spend their money. Just because this is important to you, doesnt mean anyone else gives 2 $hit$ about it.

48. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Where you see a problem I see an opportunity. I have not said this system should be paid by the state, I started by saying that electric companies should be interested to do it. Pollution, dude, that's what kills way more than traffic accidents.

49. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

But if it's paid by the electric companies, where do you think they're getting their money from? The same people. So it's no different. I see, so you not only want to charge the phones on the road, bit also the electric cars as well? Tell that to the companys working on wireless charging and see what they say. I bet they'll be closer to my train of thought than yours. As far as pollution killing more people than traffic accidents, have any facts to back that up?

50. Leo_MC

Posts: 7238; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

It is very different, because they take the money from the people that want the system - people like me - and not from the people that don't want it. I'm sure that Volvo - who, btw, is making electric trucks - and Sweden - which is building an electric highway (wired, for now), Mercedes-Benz (S klass electronic sensors that "talk" to electronic impulses on the roads) had people like you (that told them it can't be done) as consultants... Yes, everything is impossible until it's possible ;).

51. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Maybe that's how it is where you are, but it isn't that way here. They take money from all their customers when they implement new systems. It gets baked into the bill. So the only option customers have if they don't want to support it is to switch utility providers, and in many cases, there are limited to that one provider in their area. Those are all fine and good, but you seem to act like we can completely eliminate wires, even in the back haul. How is the electricity going to get from the power stations to the transmitters if not having some wires? You want wireless transmitters to feed the wireless transmitters? High voltage wires have been shown to be harmful to people. Now take away the wires and flood the world with that high voltage, what do you think is going to happen? There won't be any worse, but then again there won't be any people alive to use them either.
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.