Images Claim to Show Wireless Charging Pad Components Destined for the 'iPhone 8'

Why is it round?

Because it's pointless? ;)

I like the concept Of wireless charging. But I really don't see the need for this personally. I have no need for wireless charging with a dock or charging mat. It's Not anymore convenient for me, as I much prefer using the lightning cable. And At least if it's connected to the lightning cable, I could still use it while it's charging.

Until we see the addition of long range wireless charging, then my interest will be more Piqued.

However, you're not among the electrical engineers and have no concept of the methodology they're using for this. Maybe if you were apprised of the details, you'd respect its feasibility a bit more. As for the FCC approvals, let's wait and see, as opposed to acting like we have the faintest idea of what the FCC has directed this company to do for their testing purposes, nor whether they'll approve it or not.

You are really quick to assert that other people have no credentials, expertise, or insight into Energous and their tech. Yet you've never once provided any counter argument based on facts. @Analog Kid gave detailed science, I gave words quoted directly from the CEO, and in that same article there's info about their FCC hurdles and expert opinion about their chances of success. Yet you continually assert what others don't know. What exactly is it that you know?

However, you're not among the electrical engineers and have no concept of the methodology they're using for this. Maybe if you were apprised of the details, you'd respect its feasibility a bit more. As for the FCC approvals, let's wait and see, as opposed to acting like we have the faintest idea of what the FCC has directed this company to do for their testing purposes, nor whether they'll approve it or not.

You're right, I don't work for the company, but I recognize the pattern I'm seeing. A company comes out with wild claims and a big marketing push. They build the sense these products are already possible. They try to build up big press and generate dissatisfaction with the alternatives.

Over time, it becomes clear that they're held to the same laws of physics that everyone else is. Language gets parsed a little more carefully. Claims get quietly walked back. The demonstrated performance is either in line with what skeptics predicted when first released, or it's done in controlled environments where they can operate under R&D licenses.

When the circus finally calms down, it becomes clear why they needed so much publicity up front: their whole strategy rests on changing the laws. They need to convince FCC to change the regulatory regime, and they're hoping the publicity will convince the agency that it's in the public interest to do so.

In the end, there's no new technology-- it's simply a lobbying effort.

It's an antenna array system. They claim 100's of elements in their far field version which is an engineering feat, but not new physics. They're applying beam steering and MIMO techniques from communications, but they want it treated under ISM regulations for industrial power equipment. The reason they want to be allowed to output the power of a microwave oven is because they think they can target it on a small bubble in your pocket.

What this means for us is entirely new levels of ambient radio power in our environment to get milliwatts into our phones. They've said as much.


I'm with @69Mustang -- if I'm missing something here, tell me what. I really do love a deep dive into science and tech. In the mean time, I've got no problem answering baseless claims that this wundertek is on the horizon with my informed skepticism.

What? If it's INDUCTIVE ITS GARBAGE. We don't need to hear what Apple says. Apparently you don't understand what inductive charging is. Worthless.
[doublepost=1502967458][/doublepost]
This comment makes no sense. You seemingly do not understand inductive charging.

Why doesn' t it make sense?
You can shout , But , if you don' t understand something , it is smarter to ask questions.

for example, how about stack all of your apple portable devices and they'll all start charging in one place? stack macbook, then ipad, then mouse/trackpad, then iphone, then airpods and watch? that way you only use one outlet, you only need one wire, you don't take up that much space, you can charge your entire family's devices, and it is super portable (less things to pack for a trip).

For this to even be remotely possible we'd have to suspend reality. There's ample information out there about Energous tech. It can't even come close to doing what you're suggesting. Instead of just creating pie in the sky guesses, why not research what's actually feasible?

if they were planning on using Qi charging in iPhone with the same use case as what Android phones do, they would have already done it. there has to be some sort of UX improvement that Apple figured out with Qi charging.

None of this makes sense. That's like saying if they were planning to use OLED with the same use case as Android phones they would have already done it. Same with 1080p, 4K Apple TV, larger phones, etc. Apple dismisses stuff until they use it. It's marketing, not some brand new use case.

it was necessary in the watch for water/sweat resistance. watch could break if you plugged it in right after sweating/swimming using a lightning port.

This makes no sense either. Qi charging was not necessary for water/sweat resistance. Apple could have easily charged the AW with a lightning port or contact pins. There are plenty of devices that charge through ports and with pins and have IP certification for dust and water intrusion. Qi was not necessary. Besides, no one would be charging a wet AW just like no one would be charging a wet iPhone.