With wireless charging being inefficient and adding heating concerns, along with the fact that several years ago Apple announced and later abandoned its AirPower charging mat, and the fact that Apple has been marketing being environmentally friendly, I’m not sure if the entire iPhone range would become completely portless anytime soon.
Currently the portless devices from Apple are the Apple Watch and AirPods families — both small enough to discount inefficiencies and the environmental impact. Based on this, the first portless iPhone would be the smallest one, which would be somehow segmented so that customers still buy the more expensive models with the USB-C port.
The magnet in MagSafe really does wonders to increasing efficiency and decreasing heat escape. It really should just be the default, non-MagSafe wireless chargers are dangerous.
I haven’t inserted a cable into my iPhone for around 6 or so months now. The port is there, but it doesn’t seem to be doing much.
I really don’t understand why people complain about the efficiency of MagSafe charging. The impact is ridiculously negligible.
Turn your thermostat by half a degree, or cut your shower short by a few seconds, and you’ve probably saved more energy than wireless charging will ever waste.
I don’t believe for a second that anyone complaining about wireless charging inefficiency is spending a proportionate amount of attention on efficiency in other aspects of their life.
I don’t usually need fast wireless charging so I intentionally plug my wireless charging stand to a slow 5V USB charger. There is no noticeable heat on the phone after charging that way.
My questions is do we have any way to make high power wireless charging, say 40 to 50W that is more efficient and lower heat. I believe we are currently reaching close to 80%. The idea of Wireless charging is great, but the reality is that it doesn't work well in hot environment, it is comparatively slow and expensive.
> That would mean losing the USB-C connector and going all-in on wireless charging and syncing data with the cloud. The world is probably ready for this change.
Not if you make any kind of music with an iOS device. AirPods reportedly come in at ~160ms, which is way too high for playing anything live. There are dozens of great apps, and ways to link them all together into a robust setup. I'm still mad about the missing headphone jack, but there are USB devices for that. Bluetooth needs to get to reliably under 50ms for it to be viable.
> Not if you make any kind of music with an iOS device. AirPods reportedly come in at ~160ms, which is way too high for playing anything live.
That latency is why Apple’s been preparing to switch to UWB for wireless audio, which is one of the reasons they’ve shipped UWB on nearly all iPhones since the iPhone 11.
UWB audio latency will be far under 50ms for uncompressed/losslessly-compresssed audio.
I remember reading UWB audio latency to be under 10ms which is bonkers consider you cant even get a pixel to print out on screen End to end under that time in most cases. Input Lag, OS Lag, GPU Frame Buffer and DisplayPort / HDMI Lag + Display Panel Lag.
But that was quite some time again we still haven't seen any standard for UWB Audio. Meanwhile WiFi Audio is out already and seems to do better than most expected.
Since you mentioned the 3.5mm headphone port: I recently found out that USBC audio accessory spec was deprecated in 2023. Means those cheap usbc to 3.5mm adapters are going to be useless soon since there is no obligation to support audio through usbc. Only the relatively more expensive DACs remain.
On the bright side, the official apple adapters are $10 and have a legitimately alright DAC in them (including mic input). I picked up a couple to use with pcs and laptops since I generally have better luck with the OEM apple adapters vs the onboard audio (which usually applies weird EQ and FX - looking at you, Dell).
Per [2] lowest you can get with properiary dongle is 11ms, and with Bluetooth using SBC, which AirPods use, 85ms. Lowest latency possible using aptX LL Bluetooth headphones is 54 ms. For comparison, wired headphones bring it to as low as 0.1 ms with analog plug and 8 ms via USB
There is no physical reason for signals to take that long to play in your earphones. Signals across the ocean take less time to transmit.
I am so surprised that a trillion dollar company cannot spare the resources to fund a replacement standard for Bluetooth. When clearly Bluetooth can't be fixed.
This might not be enough reason for the full extent of 160ms, but I'd imagine something like, from low to higher latency impact:
- Digitized music needs a DAC, and this conversion takes non-zero time (few us)
- Compressed data is frequently chunked, thus not realtime (few ms)
- Data streams are buffered, because the channel (wireless) is quite lossy and may need multiple retransmissions. (few ms more)
> - Digitized music needs a DAC, and this conversion takes non-zero time (few us)
Digital musical instruments exist who also need DACs and they produce near real time audio.
> - Compressed data is frequently chunked, thus not realtime (few ms)
This is a problem with the limited bandwidth of Bluetooth. If Bluetooth had more bandwidth, you wouldn't need to compress as much or at all.
> - Data streams are buffered, because the channel (wireless) is quite lossy and may need multiple retransmissions.
Again a problem with Bluetooth. You can play computer games over wifi with others across the world with less than 30ms of ping. If you have more bandwidth, you don't have to retransmit. You just use an error-correcting code.
I wouldn't fully blame Bluetooth. Part of the problem with streaming audio is how you tolerate lag. Playback requires a constant sample rate of audio but your network is not guaranteed to deliver data at a constant rate. Designs need to accommodate for this and one of the solutions is to have larger buffers to tolerate some network lag.
For live music, as thread OP wants, you can simply switch to a different transmission mode with minimal buffer. It would then be up to the user to ensure direct line of sight between the receiver and transmitter, and do other things necessary to ensure good signal quality.
The primary problem with Bluetooth is that you can't simultaneously transmit high quality audio and receive high quality audio. There isn't enough bandwidth to do this. Apple kinds of works around it by using the mic of a nearby device, but this is less than ideal.
A new standard would fix this problem by increasing the bandwidth.
> confirmed this with European Commission press officer Federica Miccoli
It's incredibly nice to get actual people's names associated with declarations.
We had so many years of "entity X said that" to only later discover the journalist talked to the intern.
On losing USB-C, it would totally be on brand to get rid of the port on the standard model and only get it on the Pro line. Except they skipped magsafe on the current 16e, which is kinda baffling, but they could still bring it back on portless models.
> Except they skipped magsafe on the current 16e, which is kinda baffling, but they could still bring it back on portless models.
For anyone reading who may be confused, the 16e does support Qi-based wireless charging at 7.5W, so it’s very possible that a future portless non-Pro iPhone might not have MagSafe either.
I pity the iPhone developers who would be forced to use the wireless XCode debugger. And with a wire, it’s so easy to test app performance without internet access by just enabling airplane mode.
I'm ok with removing the charging port, but please bring back the headphone port. I'm tired of using bluetooth earphones that lose their charge exactly when you need them not to.
Hmm getting rid of physical plugs will affect a few different workflows.
I think it is currently required to use the iPhone as a webcam on MacBooks. I love that feature.
Most portable chargers assume physical plugs, very few are wireless.
Also my latest vehicle, a 2024 Kia, demands that the phone be physically plugged into the vehicle to do CarPlay. So yeah I want phones to have ports for a while longer.
My older vehicle supported wireless CarPlay but I think it is unreliable compared to wired thus Kia’s decision? I don’t know exactly.
I had an iPhone 13 that I charged exclusively using the official MagSafe charger and I noticed the battery degraded much faster than usual. It’s the only and last phone that I will charge wirelessly (well, until they get rid of the port and force me to…)
My worry about this is on the repair and re-use side. How are we going to be able to pair+initial sync, restore firmware, or get logs over usb/serial from a irregularly functioning device?
Just to add an opinion that goes against the grain a little bit: I've had my iPhone 14 Pro since release and I could count on one hand the number of times I've charged it via the cable. I find the MagSafe charging is extremely convenient, and plenty fast enough for my usage.
I'm not advocating that Apple get rid of the USB-C port, but I wouldn't be up in arms if they did since I never use it. (Technically my phone has a Lightning port but you get my point.)
I charged my USB C Beats Flex by plugging them into my iPhone.
I also have a portable monitor that gets power and video from a single USB C cable. I bought it as an external monitor for when I travel. But it also works with my iPhone without an adapter by using a regular USB C cable.
My iPhone can power the monitor up to 50% brightness by itself or I can plug the monitor up to a power source using a second USB cable to get full brightness and then the monitor will charge the phone.
To note, the USB-C switch added a lot more use to the port other than charging.
In particular video recording and mass storage in general can now go through the port, and is definitely more practical than in the lightning days with the clumsy dongle.
Video mirroring would be more niche, and I assume people who didn't move away at the headphone jack removal have less use of wired audio, but it's still a use case.
All in all, most users probably don't use it, but the actual "Pro" part would be another story.
USB-C made some of those use cases much better for Pro model devices which support USB-C-era speeds. Some (non-Pro) models are artificially capped at USB 2 speeds.
Yes and no. There was a lightning-USB A adapter, but I was clunky, pricy and could only be used with the phone so the value was dubious. I bought one and never saw anyone else using it in the wild.
In comparison you can plug any SSD with USB cable you already have, no adapter adapter needed. And once you get used to it you discover you can charge your earbuds through the USBC port, you can get ethernet through a standard dock, directly slurp the data from your DSLR or reuse the same SD card adapter you used for you computer already etc.
The convenience factor is just so different, it's more fundamental than just an incremental change.
As usual, the EU deliberately stumbles over its own feet in the name of "innovation". If the goal was reducing electronic waste and proprietary chargers, then why suddenly open a loophole if the chargers don't have plugs?
Also, why would "fully portless" even be a thing consumers want?
I have an iPhone with a lightning connector. I use a wireless charger at home and in my car, and AirPods pros. I used to charge with a cable, but I wash my phone regularly under the faucet and then the phone does not like to charge or corrodes the cheap cables if there is liquid remaining in there.
I exclusively wireless charge now, and happily continue keeping my phone clean.
The faucet seems a bit drastic.
I got a 1L (about 32oz?) spray bottle of Isopropyl alcohol, and use a small spray amount onto a microfiber cloth to clean iPhone and iPad screens. It’s really cheap and seems to last a long time, as only a small amount is needed.
It will degrade the oleophobic coating of the screens quicker, but I figured that would wear off over time anyway. So far it’s been really effective at wiping off all greasy fingermarks in seconds. I like the window/glass type microfiber cloth for this.
Currently the portless devices from Apple are the Apple Watch and AirPods families — both small enough to discount inefficiencies and the environmental impact. Based on this, the first portless iPhone would be the smallest one, which would be somehow segmented so that customers still buy the more expensive models with the USB-C port.