Qi is well supported in almost every wi-power device. Nearly every phone that supports wireless power today, already uses Qi, including already released devices from Samsung, LG, Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, and many others over the last two years.
PMA / PowerMat is the odd man out. The only time I see it used is when Duracell pays for it (either in their own Powermat line, or their agreements with folks AT&T requiring companies to make Powermat devices like http://bit.ly/UwhZ2R )
I was really hoping that this wouldn't end up being another drawn out compatibility war, and since 99% of the momentum and device support is behind Qi already, it seems efficient to let Qi win.
Of course, if Apple releases PMA in the next iPhone, PMA will win by default, no matter how late they choose to release it.
Qi is everywhere. The problem is that Starbucks announced this project back in 2012 when Powermat was more well known. Google, and others, shifted from supporting pm to qi shortly after, I believe due to licensing costs, and now the market is full of android phones that use qi. I've been using it for my last 2 phones. Works fine with a cheap Energizer charging pad. Its simple and it works. I'm now at the point where I'm annoyed with fiddling with little connectors, especially if its late at night and I'm tired and keyed it the wrong way. Less damaged cables as well. While I'm skeptical it'll be used in public spots due to the potential of theft, its really nice to have at home.
From a tech perspective they both use induction. The A4WP product uses magnetic resonance, but I don't think they have a sellable product yet, but in theory they could charge your phone from across the room. I think demos have only shown it work from a few inches away. This solution is very non-green considering the inverse sq law. I have a feeling that there will be pushback if people are wasting 2x or 5x the energy to charge their devices, as well as larger electricity bills. Not to mentionn, Joe User asking about "radiation."
The war isn't over because Apple hasn't picked a side. I imagine they'll go with pm to be difficult and to hurt Android's qi based phones. "Oh, you can't charge here, its iPhone only," seems to be a narrative that helps sell the "exclusivity" of their devices.
I also find it a little hard to believe that Starbucks would invest in all this technology without some kind of nod from Apple that this will be in their next phone. A4WP signed some agreement with PMA recently, so who knows whats going to happen here. It sounded like a desperate move to me, but now I'm not so sure with the starbucks roll-out and the Apple wildcard at play.
> I imagine they'll go with pm to be difficult and to hurt Android's qi based phones.
Disclaimer: I really dislike Apple and am not likely to ever (personally) own any iDevices in the future (although, I am the Android minority in my household). But I can't really fault them for making their own charge connector that does appear to be superior to the mini/micro USB that is standard on most other phones. It would be nice if all phones used the same connector and if it was the Lightning Plug I'd be fine with that. But if they come late to the game and pick PM or Qi just to be difficult but gain no real tech advantage... well that is just a dick move. Which is exactly the type of thing they would do, sadly. :/
I was very excited by this title and incredibly disappointed when I read the actual article and saw that they're using Powermat. Given Starbucks's historical relationship with Apple, I'm fairly convinced now that this means that the next iPhone will have wireless charging through Powermat.
Format and standardization wars benefit literally nobody (look at VHS vs. Betamax and Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD). In this case, it's even worse because it'd be fragmentation for the sake of fragmentation - from an end-user perspective, there's essentially no difference between the two[0], and the main issue is really patent royalties more than anything else[1].
> While I'm skeptical it'll be used in public spots due to the potential of theft, its really nice to have at home.
Well, plug-in charging is already fairly common in coffee shops, and the cord clearly doesn't provide security. I think wireless charging will be even bigger since you just pull the phone out of your pocket and plop in on the table, rather than bring the charger with you.
> From a tech perspective they both use induction.
One of the other commentators mentions that he thinks Powermat is more forgiving on exact positioning of the device on the mat. Do you know if this is real/important?
> One of the other commentators mentions that he thinks Powermat is more forgiving on exact positioning of the device on the mat. Do you know if this is real/important?
I think you're referring to gdilla, who stated (incorrectly[0]) that this Powermat's technology is less sensitive to positioning because it does not use inductive-based charging (in fact, it does).
I've been using wireless charging on the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 for a while now[1], and the main factor is simply the size of the device and the surface area of the charger. There might be some subtle difference beyond that, but if so, it's too small for me to have noticed after several months of daily use. I never have to think about it.
As someone with a Windows Phone, I was excited to hear my local Starbucks had installed wireless charging last year and went to try it. Unfortunately it is PowerMat, something I've never seen anyone have.
Seems like Duracell (they are the primary backer) is trying to make another push against the market.
I have nothing other than personal lock-in (nexus 5) to Qi. that being said, I don't know if there are any phones that have powermat integrated, does anyone know of any?
PowerMat's resonance charging supports multiple devices on one charging matt, whereas Qi uses inductive charging which require more precise placement to charge. I think Qi may have resonant charging solutions coming up or out now, but you can see the better experience in a place like Startbucks would be resonance charging. It's much closer to don't-make-me-think.
> PowerMat's resonance charging supports multiple devices on one charging matt, whereas Qi uses inductive charging which require more precise placement to charge.
Both PowerMat and Qi use inductive charging[0][1].
There are some technical differences, but the two are separated more by licensing and legal/political reasons than by actual underlying functionality and technology.
I was in an airline lounge at SFO a few days ago. Alongside the regular power sockets were USB charging outlets. I tried to use one to charge my iPhone, but the current (or voltage?) was so unstable that my touchscreen went haywire and the device was unusable, just like when using super-cheap mains->USB adapters.
I just recently flew from Chicago O'Hare to CPH and there were multiple USB ports at a bar table (just after TSA at the international terminal) which work amazingly well (also: no lounge). I wish every airport had places like these.
At a stopover in an airport in Sweden, they had password protected locking compartments with a multitude of chargers that you could leave your phone in for free, so that you didn't have to stay in one location while your phone was charging. I was a bit sleep deprived and almost forgot my phone, but other than that the convenience was great. Definitely something American airports should get.
There is a cafe at my university (Univ. of Cincinnati) that has something exactly like what you are describing. I've used it a few times and it was really convenient. It has taken people a bit to get used to it though.
Weve had them in Cambridge MA for a while now- You have to have a special case to use the wireless charging station. I predict this getting a lot of press but wont be practically useful. If youre on the street going about your day and need a charge up, it is unlikely youll have the required case nearby.
Looking at the wiki page and the spec on their website v1.0 of the spec is 5W of charging[1]. There is apparently a new one that either has been released or may be released soon that supports up to 120W.
HN titles can deviate, but you should be careful with the deviations. In this case something like Nationwide (USA) probably would've been fine. Make a post after the submission so that dang and other mods/admins can see your rationale for your change if you're particularly concerned. Worst case, they change it back on you.
Do you think The Verge consider their market to be only the USA? They are using the www not the usw so far as I can tell.
Truth is they make it quite clear which nation in the first line of the article - I think The Verge are a global news source [albeit, yes, with a USA focus] and that they're quite cognisant of that, given the rest of this article.
'www' is not their tld, .com is, and .com is a US tld, created by the US government and administered by US corporations. Russia has .ru, and if there was an article on theverge.ru talking about a nation-wide rollout, we could assume they were talking about the nation of Russia.
.us is the ccTLD for USA. .com is the defacto default for all types of entities from across the world. Verisign call .com "The Global Online Standard". Yes, USA broke the convention and structure to preference themselves - that seems to be a favorite passtime.
This is very naive, by far the largest audience of The Verge is the USA and the audience outside of the USA knows full well that they are American, so when they write "nationwide" they mean the USA. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Well I've visited the Verge 3 other times in the last 2 years [on this machine] but it just appeared to me to be a standard web based news source rather than specifically USA focused. Are all The Verge's journalists from USA, do they not cover stories that aren't parochial? I'm curious you characterise me as naive in this - The Verge don't appear to promote a USA-centric view.
As I said, the story made it clear it was USA in the first line of the article proper - I'd think that was part of The Verge being cognisant of the web being global and knowing that they get non-USA readers.
Personally I consider it foolish to assume web visitors are from a specific geography and that - in particular - a .com website is only to be read from, or at least in the context of, USA. There is no default country on the web IMO.
