I don't mean to be offensive, just curious why you are so confident this company or product is a industry game changer.
This charger takes 2.25 hours to reach 80% or 4.5 hours to reach 100% capacity. Could it simply be that they're charging more slowly?
Maybe other battery makers know about this, but they don't implement it because they (and consumers) don't value using the battery effectively. Hoping for some lithium-charging experts (I know there are people out there with this as their primary research focus) to weigh in.
On the other hand, research is tough and it is so much easier to learn about the existence of a few hot words (like BMS), file a provisional patent and smooth-talk an investor or two with 'BatteryOS platform' . Considering that they are comparing their charging cycle with the "conventional" charger and throw words like "Chevy Volt, which only charges its battery to 50 percent capacity" I'm finding this scenario as a more likely one.
Still. It is not like I wouldn't like having more well designed LiIon BMS/charger combos on the market! There aren't many available and it's always nice to have more choice! So good luck!
They've probably tried their best, but it is really really really easy to make a mistake when you are designing an experiment. Or post-processing your experimental data. Or plotting the results. Or doing your math.
As it was noticed in the comments below, it looks like in that particular case an outcome of an experiment was decided using insufficient (n = 1) number of samples [ http://www.getbatterybox.com/bos.html#highexpl ]. Also there is at least one mistake in the math, a 50Wh battery can not be charged from a discharged state to 80% by 5 Volt 1 Amp power source in 4.5 hours [ http://www.getbatterybox.com/index.html#faq ]. The math is wrong.
[1] As per Wikipedia article: confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
I can promise you none of this is new to anyone in the battery industry. The problem is not lack of knowledge. In general, the problem is the lack of desire to pay for a micro controller which can run the software necessary to do the math in the battery pack.
PG's line there is a reinforcing hint for those that missed the Boosted Boards example previously or weren't too optimistic in response to that RFS. Hopefully it helps more people think about how they could approach big problems in an initially accessible way.