No MagSafe, only Qi (not Qi2).
800 nits typical brightness vs. 1000 for the 16, 1200 nits maximum brightness vs. 1600–2000 nits.
Notch vs. dynamic island, of course.
800 nits typical brightness vs. 1000 for the 16, 1200 nits maximum brightness vs. 1600–2000 nits.
Notch vs. dynamic island, of course.
Qi2 is based on Magsafe.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/3/23538131/qi2-wireless-char...
That's an insult to all of the engineering that went into Qi.
The Magsafe specification was an attempt to create the new Lightning connector ecosystem that backfired spectacularly and blew up in Apple's face. It's nothing more than magnets and DRM layered on top of a regular Qi charger.
Naturally Apple used the DRM to limit the charging speeds of their phones when paired with regular Qi chargers. There's a practical reason for this which is how Apple tried to justify their outrageous licensing fee to implement Magsafe.
Unfortunately for Apple, manufacturers mostly said no to Magsafe licensing and Apple's user based complained to Apple that their phones wouldn't charge at the rated speeds of the Qi chargers they bought.
This put Apple in an awkward position where they could tell their users to only buy MagSafe devices, compromise on safety to appease users, or give up on Magsafe being proprietary. Thankfully they chose the later.
Qi2 isn't Magsafe, Qi2 incorporated Magsafe because it improves the standard.
Don't let Apple marketing fool you into thinking Apple is doing this altruistically.
> With the blessing of competitors, Apple is about to change the Qi wireless standard itself. It’s contributing to a new version of Qi that works much like MagSafe — magnets, authentication, and all.
Your statement implies that Qi2 used Magsafe as a starting point or that it's primarily based on Magsafe. Your statement is inaccurate and would lead people to think that Qi2 was mostly an Apple design.
It's subjective how important the history is and how important Apple's contributions are, but that seems to be what they were getting at.
You'd be wrong, though. Apple is on the WPC membership and has heavy influence over their spec definitions. They do this with many standards. They sit on the standards body as contributing members, and influence the specifications in ways they see as beneficial. They did this with USB (especially USB-C), they do this with MIPI standards, and they do this with WPC.
When standards organizations move too slow (which, is pretty much always), companies like Apple will move to make proprietary versions of a thing usually based on drafts of standards that are taking too long.
Next time you merge any pull request into your project (especially a tiny one adjusting some UI spacing), should I come on Hacker News and repeatedly insist you had nothing to do with the project's development and the person who wrote that PR really deserves all the credit? That's the metaphor cptskippy was using. You're making it out to be a "ship of Theseus" situation when it's not.