No clue on what info you base that anything changed. E-ink screen features are now what they were before. They are not intended for fast refresh rates as for example gaming screens. They can be mounted on the same sides as before.
Maybe by some. Any tinkerer can still include it even if any Jolla released will not have it. One of the main points of TOH is that DIY tinkerers can do whatever they want.
Why? Can you post ANY technical reason?
Source?
Additionally, of course, we cannot be sure without trying it. We have not had the product in our hands yet. Since we have not fully tested the wireless charging, the keyboard, or the speaker in person, we cannot know how high-end the feeling will be. I am not speaking with absolute certainty about that anyway.
But there is a website provided by Jolla, and it explains what outputs and connections they are giving us. When you research that a bit, it basically says: do not expect a very high-quality speaker; if you make an e-ink screen, your eyes will be able to follow the refresh rate one by one; and regarding wireless charging, compared to others, it clearly shows with the given values that it will not meet your urgent needs that well.
So what exactly is wrong with that?
There is a sentence that follows after that, isn’t there? When I said “it was expected to be added,” I didn’t mean Jolla. I think a translation mistake occurred there.
What I meant was that a topic had been opened about this. There were questions like whether any project had ever been made, what the situation was with wireless charging, and how it would work. I was simply expressing that curiosity.
The issue is the pogo pin function assignment. They expose I²C/I3C + power/control, not an audio-oriented interface. If some pins were assigned to I2S/PCM audio, USB 2.0 audio, or analog line-out, a proper DAC/amp/speaker TOH would be much easier and better. With the current 5 V / 1 A + I²C/I3C setup, it is more suited for control/sensors/ than high-quality wired audio.
I think the keyboard and the game console will basically work with almost the same logic. And of course, additionally, a friend also told me this, and I do agree with his sentence as well: we cannot be 100% sure. This is only how we expect it to work based on the specifications currently given.
Maybe the maximum performance is much better for a phone; I don’t know. But in short, wireless charging feels insufficient to me. Low is low; we cannot change that. However, we also cannot know without trying it.
Still, from what I see, we should not expect a high-end configuration. So when customizing it, I think I will consider it twice, because the real question is whether it will truly be worth it functionally or not. Otherwise, it becomes unnecessary.
I mean, I cannot fully agree with you here, to be honest. Yes, partially. At one point, you say that, in a way, it also looks like something done for the sake of looking cool or stylish. Actually, you are right about that. I also have an iPhone, and I am not someone who uses wireless charging as if I am dependent on it. But that is not really the point.
The issue I am criticizing is this: they have brought us the wireless charging feature, and that is genuinely nice. If they had not brought it, it would have been somewhat more disappointing for users. At least they are not just trying to impress us superficially like some other companies. However, the features they brought with it are very limited.
The fact that it is so limited makes me think: you have a “The Other Half” feature on your phone, but adding wireless charging to it will not make a huge, remarkable difference. Maybe if it had offered good wattage support, then its addition could have been seen as somewhat more acceptable.
What am I saying? Did you read what I wrote carefully? I did not say anything opposing anyway, did I?
I wish you would read what I wrote a little, or maybe there is a translation mistake, I do not know. What I meant there was that the old “The Other Half” era was genuinely nice, and its technology was acceptable as well. Even at that time, they had an idea and achieved a good success according to the technology of that period. That is what I am saying.
Why are you looking for a different meaning? Are you doing it deliberately? Instead of taking one part of what I wrote and asking “What do you mean?”, if you read the sentence that comes after it, it is clearly obvious why those sentences were said.
I gave you a clear explanation above. If you feel the need to read it, you will have read it. I stated the technical reasons. I think there is no need to prolong this any further.
When I said “they brought the same issue again,” there is a continuation there. I mean, it might possibly not have supported the wireless charging feature at all. So why are you quoting only part of my sentence and asking about it? I am trying to make an effort to write in a sufficiently long and explanatory way.
Maybe that is a part of the reason I often don’t understand your posts.
So, I write by checking twice as much as I can. Of course, a translation app may not convey what I am explaining 100% accurately, and I already apologize for that. But what bothers me here is that I am explaining a situation there, and then you pick out one part from that situation and ask, “Who said this?” whereas the continuation of that situation, and the sentence that gives meaning to what I said, continues right after it.
This was already discussed before. Please follow the thread.
I did not understand this part. I had already answered your question about charging. You quoted that part and replied to it, but this reply does not lead to any conclusion. Could you explain more clearly what you mean?
When I said, “What is the purpose of adding wireless charging?”, I meant that if there is no good wattage support, then there is not much need to add it. In other words, a user would think twice about whether it is really necessary for their phone. If it had been higher, maybe they would not even have thought about this situation at all, like 15W for example. That is what I wanted to explain.
Nothing was said about it not being usable. The speaker is not impossible anyway. If you follow the thread a little, we discussed whether it is high-quality or low-quality. Some people like it, some don’t—that’s what I meant. Similarly, with wireless charging, some people like that wattage output, some don’t. Everyone has different tastes and needs. We never said the speaker is impossible; we just said not to expect something very high-quality.
Well that’s a lot of waffling to avoid having to admit that yes, wireless charging is kind of a useless waste that looks a little bit cool. Its a waste of electricity and hardware, pure and simple.
No, I am not beating around the bush. We discussed opinions because it was necessary and because I value your opinion. No problem, from now on I will keep my replies short.
Reply = No, it is not a waste. If it were completely like that, many big companies would not continue maintaining it.
The fact that something is a waste with no or little practical benefit or use doesn’t mean people aren’t going to keep paying for it. If that was true most smartwatches, the whole fashion, makeup and plastic surgery industry wouldn’t exist or exist in a much diminished capacity.
Its a waste, but it has the cool factor so people who don’t understand or care what a waste it is will keep buying devices with it.
Yes I am because its inherently wasteful and that’s dictated by physics. I won’t bother going into the specifics of electromagnetic induction, what wireless charging is based on, but needless to say it’s lossy. There’s no way you can get it much higher than 80% unless you start messing with the shape of the whole device. Even once the device is uncomfortable to hold in your hand it won’t be any more efficient than 90% as compared to 99% versus just plugging it in.
Data transfer would also be painfully slow if you tried to cram that in there too. Wireless charging operates on roughly 100-200 kHz range while older slow versions of bluetooth and wifi operates in the 2.4GHz spectrum. So that’s just a stupid idea. Plain and simple.
Outside of a few niche applications wireless charging is just a wasteful cool factor thing pushed by companies whose main job is to just sell people things. If third parties are going to be making their own ToHs with them, then go ahead and waste your time and money. But Jolla really shouldn’t waste any of their time and money either changing the ToH specs for this and especially not making an official one. There are a 1001 better things they could spend all that effort on.
Well that’s a pretty blatant straw man if I ever saw one.
I never argued against ToHs like your straw man tries to say, just pointing out that wirless charging is inherently a waste. Both as a technology and as something to spend your time with. If Jolla wants to make some reference ToHs then almost anything else they can come up with with be a far better use of their time, effort and money. Make those keyboards, those extra batteries, precision GPS receivers, LiDAR scanners, macro lens, IR or nightvision cameras. Please. But don’t waste your limited time, energy and money on something that’s inherently a waste on every level as dictated by physics.
Your responses don’t reach a conclusion and are too superficial. Stop giving answers just for the sake of answering. The data transfer I mentioned is not the one you talked about. Right now it is like this, but it is expected to evolve in the future — even wireless charging is emerging for charging cars. What are you trying to tell me? You are saying these are useless things. Your comment reminded me of this: touch-screen phones are “useless,” while button phones are still better. 
Anything that isn’t innovative can never get anywhere. You critique the flaws excessively, and at the end, you suggest spending time/money elsewhere. Friend, improving or adding something doesn’t require much money. People are buying this phone for around 650–700 euros on average. It should give value for the money spent. Kanthal was completely right and gave a proper, good answer.
That’s why wireless charging is not a useless waste. If it were, major companies wouldn’t implement it today. And it continues to develop day by day. I hope that soon we reach the point we discussed, and I will tag you so we can talk about this in detail.
I think you should be careful with the “straw man” expression. I had told you before: your coffee tastes bitter; please drink your coffee with milk so it becomes sweeter.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
The reality is that with the slab design phones have you simply cannot get much better than what exists today already. Its the inherent inefficiencies of the physics that dictates this. Much the same way a sample rate of 100-200kHz cannot do support any useful data transfer beyond negotiating the voltages and that kind of thing. Bluetooth and WiFi had to abandon 2.4GHz because it was too low to transfer data at an acceptable rate.
Mind you, I’m saying this as someone who actually has an engineering degree and works as an engineer. I didn’t previously bother brining it up because throwing around credentials like this is a pretty asshole thing to do most of the time.
The old “argumentum ad populum“ is well known logical fallacy. Obvious examples of popularity not being an argument are easy to come by. Both Trump and Hitler came to power thru elections so they can’t be bad by your logic, or rather lack thereof. By this logic McDonalds is the world’s best restaurant, bar none. People vote for, say, do, think and spend their money on dumb things in droves. Always have and always will.
Also, wireless charging in cars isn’t “emerging” any more than Tesla’s hot-swappable batteries or robotic self-guiding supercharger connectors that they showed off over 10 years ago. The fact that something being done doesn’t mean it’ll ever be practical. Its doble, but its a massive waste of energy.
Try to remember that the iPhone got where it got by starting off getting the basics right. People at companies like Nokia mocked it for lacking features, but where are they now? Apple also dropped the original version of their inductive charging because it was too inefficient. It wasn’t until they did an enormous amount of extra engineering with magnets, a custom chip to precisely control it that they considered it good enough to bring to market. Yet it still throws away about 20% of the energy.
Those are the kind of resources Jolla doesn’t have. Its a choice between a crap implementation or nothing. I’d rather chose something more akin to an original iPhone with the basics done right than a Nokia 5530 XpressMusic that can’t do anything well.
You still have not understood the data transfer point. You say you are an engineer, but if you remember, I explained wireless data transfer to you. I said “if it were possible,” because that was what was trying to be achieved in this situation. If it had been successful, we would have had a phone with no port, better water resistance, and better space efficiency.
Think of it just like eSIM or the removal of the headphone jack. Look carefully: space was saved with all of them. If data transfer through wireless charging had truly been possible, I definitely claim that the port would have been removed too. I did not claim that wireless charging is very fast or that it is currently very fast at transferring data. You are now pulling my words into different topics and putting both of us into an unnecessary dispute. If you look at my messages, I never made a sentence claiming that wireless charging is amazingly good for data transfer. I said that if it became possible, it would create something excellent in terms of a portless design, water resistance, and space saving.
You even said wireless charging for cars is wasteful, but are you not aware that it also provides convenience, Mr. Engineer? Porsche developed the electric wireless charging feature for the Cayenne because they saw that carrying a cable for electric vehicles is inconvenient, and they wanted to provide this kind of convenience. So look, that means it was not illogical, right?
Everything has a convenience, practical reasons, and a reason why it is needed. Because they know this, big companies are not abandoning this area and are continuing to develop it further. That is also partly why I said it is evolving. Do you remember? I said this before too: because we do not know what the things we underestimate today may bring tomorrow, everything can change even more.
You give an example about food, and this is exactly why I call these superficial answers. According to you, with this perspective I am supposedly claiming that McDonald’s is the best restaurant. Friend, that is very absurd. No, my perspective is that McDonald’s has a place it appeals to because of the price-performance product it offers and the cheap addiction it provides.
In the same way, wireless charging may be only 50% useful today, but everyone is still trying to bring it to maybe 80% or 90%. If they saw this situation as wasteful, they would not bother working on it anyway. Today, it exists in cars, cafés, public transport areas, phones, and many electrical devices, and it is not being abandoned. I think the reason is very clear.
Again with the arguing for the sake of arguing… There’s no point in bringing up doing data thru the same hardware as you’re doing electromagnetic induction. Its a dumb idea, end of story. This time so dumb it was never even tried in a real product.
As for your idea of a phone with no ports; What do you do when the software gets into a state where it can’t even boot? Throw it out and buy a new one? There’s a reason why even Apple hasn’t tried to make an iPhone this and its not just because its illegal to sell in the EU where every phone has to have a USB-C port. If you want a device like that this is completely the wrong place. You should probably go talk about it at the Macrumors forums or something. Because it’s a dumb idea and its also illegal to sell in the EU.
To return to the cars, to get an acceptable efficiency Porsche’s engineers had to make an inductive plate so big that the only car they sell that’s big enough to fit it is the Cayenne SUV. Any smaller car couldn’t fit it or one big enough to provide an acceptable efficiency. Even then its advertised as 90% efficient which in real life probably translates to 70%. Because of this there isn’t a single one of these 19kW in the wild and you can’t even buy one until sometime in the second half of 2026.
That’s just the physics talking again. Only way to make even a 70% efficient standard is with an inductive plate so big it only fits under an SUV. This isn’t like shrinking down chips, its that big just so it can capture the whole electrical filed generated by the charger. Make it any smaller and it’ll capture a smaller part of the field and that will be wasted. On top of the losses from transforming the 50/60Hz 220V AC into the 100-200kHz AC used by the charger, heat losses in both the field generating (the charger) and receiving (device) coils before finally losing some more transforming that 100-200kHz AC to DC for the battery.
Those losses to the coils getting hot are no joke. When Apple was developing the original shelved version without the magnets, to get enough power to they’d consider it worthwhile they had phones and chargers catching fire. They had to have huge heatsinks to avoid this and they found those to be unacceptable from a design standpoint.
To repeat myself again; Because of the laws of physics, it will never be much more than 80% in a practical setting with devices that haven’t been more compromised in terms of usability than what inductive charging could make up for. The fact that something is totally wasteful is not a reason for people to not like or keep making more of it. People today are largely hedonists who simply do not care about the environment or waste. I do and hence I’m writing this.
Again; People are idiots who want, like, say, think and vote for dumb things. Something being popular does not make it good even not bad. No matter how hard you try to defend McDonalds and showing that you’ve clearly not been in one in years. Because they’ve stopped being cheap a long time ago.
Look, I already understand what you were sincerely trying to explain to me. In fact, in your first comment, I even acknowledged that you had a point. But the part where I do not agree with you is that you completely dismiss this whole thing. In a way, you had an assumption like, “This feature is trash, remove it and throw it away.” That is the assumption I am upset about.
Of course, the calculations you gave are not wrong. But the contradiction between us here is that I do not think it is useless. I gave the car example, for instance. But even after I gave that example, you said, “Porsche managed it, but it still has these major shortcomings.” Look, you still did not understand. I am talking about its practicality and usefulness. I think it can evolve.
For example, with the Apple example, you ask, “How would you boot it?” Look, again, you are falling into a contradiction. I am saying: if it becomes possible, if this data transfer reaches a level where it can be done through a wireless connection, then it could work. If it does not reach that point, then of course removing the ports would be illogical.
It is like wireless headphones. Maybe in the beginning they were weak, or because they could not stay in sync with the other earbud, they caused audio distortion, right? But then what happened? They gradually became stronger. Eventually, even if we put the phone far away, we were still able to listen to music. I mean the same kind of thing here. Maybe this technology is not very strong today, but why should it remain weak? Why should we say it is completely wasteful and trash, and throw the project away instead of improving and strengthening it?
This is the point where we cannot agree. I am not asking you what its shortcomings are. I am explaining its practicality and asking why it should not become better in the future. After all, it is something that is gradually developing. That was also why I gave the car example. I was not trying to talk about its shortcomings. Not everything has to be perfect the moment it is first produced.
Yes, I have not been to McDonald’s for a long time, but for many of us, isn’t it a cheap restaurant and a price-performance product? In my country, if I want to eat something cheap, I order from there.
As for what you said about popularity not making something good: of course, I understand that. I also understand the possible harms that may come with it; you already gave many engineering-based examples. But you did not talk about its practicality, if you notice. In my previous reply, my intention was not to criticize you or anything like that. I was trying to give you practical examples and say that there is progress in this area.
I am not saying, “If something like this happens, then this will definitely happen.” The assumption I am offering you is only this: maybe it is not good today, and maybe it has many flaws that can be criticized, but that does not mean it will not become better in the future or that it will be impossible. I believe everything becomes better by learning lessons, trying again, and improving over time.
The only point we really disagree on is actually clear in a short summary: we both know that wireless charging is not perfect. I believe it will become better and evolve. But you are saying, “No, no matter what, this is trash, useless, a wasteful project; throw it away.” That is where we clash. There is no broader issue than that.
But in some places, you broke your respectful tone toward me. If I also failed to remain respectful, I apologize again. However, I did not find it appropriate that you called me a “straw man.” In this forum, or generally in any discussion, our ideas may conflict and we may even argue. But if we are going to give each other labels, or if we are going to carry prejudice toward each other into the next community discussions, then it would definitely be better to remove me from here.
So please, I kindly ask you not to label me. This made me a bit sad, because the reason I wrote long messages to you at the beginning was not to lecture you or argue for the sake of arguing. My reasons and sentences are clear in everything I wrote. I hope my translation app explained this situation well. I even check it twice just to see if there is any mistake.
Not to me. I’m almost unable to understand what is the gist you’re trying to pass to others. Other that your NEED to convince others that you’re right. Even if you turn your past words in the process.
This a feedback to you in general not to this topic alone.
And to both of you. You waste time for all of us. On the next useless post for others from any of you I’ll split just your posts into totally separate topic.
Send me the parts you did not understand, and I will try to explain them as much as I can. I did not change my words in the past or anything like that; I am saying whatever it is.
You say, “If another useless post for others comes again,” but this dragged on because it became a long discussion where we could not agree. I wrote about The Other Half, and I had no bad intention in that topic. I stated in my first message that I did not.
However, the community did not want to tolerate the things I said. I had already understood this when I looked back at the past. If you want me to say it, I will say it. Otherwise, this time you will say that I changed the subject and ask why. That is why I will not discuss too much what I saw when I looked back.
If I had to summarize it in one sentence: if Jolla is so flawless that it cannot be criticized, or if there is a fixed mindset in the forum, then thank you, I am not in this game. I wish you success then.