In an unexpected twist, Apple has canceled its long-delayed AirPower wireless charger, citing quality problems.
“After much effort, we’ve concluded AirPower will not achieve our high standards and we have cancelled the project,” Apple senior vice president Dan Riccio says in a prepared statement. “We apologize to those customers who were looking forward to this launch. We continue to believe that the future is wireless and are committed to push the wireless experience forward.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Apple announced the AirPower wireless charging mat in September 2017, alongside the iPhone X, 8, and 8 Plus, and said that it would release the device sometime in 2018. That never happened, though a report in mid-2018 noted that the device would be delayed until the second half of the year.
Then that didn’t happen, and the 2018 holiday season came and went with no word—let alone no product—from Apple. In January, there were rumors that production had begun. Then, code in the beta version of recently-released iOS 12 suggested a release was imminent.
So that’s obviously not happening now. And it’s unclear exactly what the problem was, though I find Apple’s statement above a bit contorted, as if the AirPower had somehow let down the company.
I guess it was a hard computer science problem.
wocowboy
Premium Member<blockquote><em><a href="#416584">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>There are dozens of quite capable wireless chargers available, from a myriad of manufacturers, and in a myriad of form factors, so there really was no need for Apple to come out with one of their own. Apple can pick and choose what markets they want to be a part of, what they should do is be a bit more particular of what they pre-announce as "coming soon". This has gotten plenty of other manufacturers bad press when they could not or never did release said products. I know some people want to jump on this as some sort of HUGE EPIC failure by Apple, but truth is, it's not that at all. Not every prototype makes it out of the lab, and Airpower was one of those, simple enough. </p>
skane2600
<p>At least they have been smart enough not to announce a ARM-based Mac otherwise they might be going down this road again.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416590">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>I would imagine this one is going to happen. It's seems pretty obviously on the horizon. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416656">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>Could be, but it almost seems like it would be a strategy to kill the Mac. Or would it be just a way to save a few dollars that wouldn't be passed on to their customers? It's hard to imagine any benefit it would have for Mac users.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#416685">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why would transitioning the Mac to an custom ARM-based processor kill the Mac? I say the opposite. By doing that it unifies Apple's development platform around UIKit + ARM. That benefits developers because it makes development of "universal" apps easier and it's great for customers because they can easily download apps that will run on macOS / iOS => pay once / run anywhere. </p><p><br></p><p>And yes, I realize MS had the same strategy in mind with UWP apps but that didn't work out for them because they dropped the ball with respect to mobile devices which is where most of the action is right now.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416696">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>Running "anywhere" will be a compromised experience at best as it always has been and always will be. If Apple wanted to implement a "pay once" scheme for iOS and Mac programs with the same name, they don't need to link them at the binary level. Doing so is a marketing and financial issue, not a technical one.</p><p><br></p><p>Obviously for a brand new platform, developers are key (along with a viable market, of course) but for a mature platform like the Mac with no lack of first-class programs, it's the users who are key. From a user's perspective, the minimal requirement for an ARM-based Mac would be that all existing programs run at full speed and future updates would work transparently as well. This is unlikely to be achieved.</p><p><br></p><p>From a legacy developer's perspective, an ARM-based Mac would be problematic since there would have to be two versions of the product, an ARM-based one for new Macs and an Intel-based one for the large existing customer base. </p><p><br></p><p>IMO it would be hard to find a non-mobile-oriented iOS app that didn't already have a similar program on the Mac that was superior. In the other direction, it's hard to imagine a sophisticated Mac program that can be as effective and easy to use as it is now when ported to iOS devices.</p><p><br></p><p>Form-factor matters, Legacy matters.</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#416829">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>"If Apple wanted to implement a "pay once" scheme for iOS and Mac programs with the same name, they don't need to link them at the binary level. Doing so is a marketing and financial issue, not a technical one."</p><p><br></p><p>They'r already going down that path with Project Marzipan</p><p><br></p><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/apple-is-said-to-target-combining-iphone-ipad-mac-apps-by-2021" target="_blank">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/apple-is-said-to-target-combining-iphone-ipad-mac-apps-by-2021</a></p><p><br></p><p>"Obviously for a brand new platform, developers are key (along with a viable market, of course) but for a mature platform like the Mac with no lack of first-class programs, it's the users who are key. "</p><p><br></p><p>I agree there are many first-class applications on the Mac but the Mac is suffering the same problems as Windows 10 => hardly any developer is creating NEW native Mac or Win32 apps. Vast majority are just updates or new versions of existing apps</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416832">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>The lack of new development suggests that most of the functionality users need is already been implemented, but ARM won't change that whether it's on Windows or the Mac. IMO, iOS offers nothing that Mac users need.</p><p><br></p><p>Let mobile be mobile and desktop be desktop. There's no need to try to combine them.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416685">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple has done a good job of improving the performance of their ARM based processors year over year and I don't think it is unreasonable to think they will be able to match Intel when it comes to desktop computing in the next five or so years. The benefit of switching to their own processors would be in designing the hardware and software together much like moved to making their own processors for iOS. If there is a technical benefit for doing it or it allows them to provide some feature they otherwise couldn't they will. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416867">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>While there is a question about whether the performance of the ARM chips will measure up to Intel, that isn't the main problem IMO. There's no identifiable advantage to users in making the switch and potentially significant disadvantages for legacy users. As I described it isn't necessarily advantageous to developers either.</p><p><br></p><p>While it's conceivable that an advantage could be derived from making both the CPU and the other hardware, tightly coupling hardware systems that serve different purposes has a downside too. Separation of concerns can be relevant to hardware as well as software.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416886">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>I get the concern around legacy users and developers. Apple has successfully navigated this in the past with the move from classic OS to Mac OS X and then from PowerPC to Intel. The PowerPC to Intel was pretty seamless from a user perspective and Apple did a bit of work to make it easier for developers. I would assume they would more or less repeat that approach. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416899">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's not clear if the conditions today are sufficiently similar to those of the PowerPC to Intel transition time-frame to result in success. That transition started 2 years before the iPhone and the eventual dominance of apps. Investing in another transition, might not seem to be a good move on the part of legacy developers this time around.</p><p><br></p><p>Despite any legacy issues, the PowerPC to Intel transaction was clearly of benefit to users. It allowed a higher-performing laptop without the heating issues of the Power PC. It also eventually lead to allowing Windows programs to run on a Mac.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416908">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what the transition has to do with the iPhone in the slightest. I am also not arguing that it is a good move or that it will be successful should Apple do it. What I am saying is that if Apple sees a clear benefit in doing it (performance improvements or the ability to implement features they can't with intel) then they likely will do it. Apple has a history of doing this. Given the amount of money and work Apple has put into its own chip development I think it would be reasonable to assume they are at least exploring the option. </p><p><br></p><p>To me that their current trajectory is toward making that kind of change but I'm completely guessing. I think it's safe to assume you disagree with my guess. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416973">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>The point was made earlier that part of the value of this transition was that it would combine iOS and Mac OS and noted that less new development was happening on the Mac presumably in favor of developing for iOS instead. In that context, the iPhone is quite relevant to the discussion since it was the start of iOS apps. The point is that the value of the Mac market may be diminished today relative to the last transition when there was no iOS to compete with. </p>
shameermulji
<p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I guess it was a hard computer science problem."</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It was a hard physics problem, as in it could potentially burn-your-house-down problem. What Apple was trying to accomplish with AirPower, no one else has solved yet.</span></p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416650">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"sold to a gullible customer base"</em></p><p><br></p><p>Actually, nothing was sold to anyone. Nor will it be, apparently. </p><p><br></p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416675">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>"Actually, a lot was sold."</em></p><p>Really? Put a number on that an cite your source.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416773">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>I have no doubt people held off buying other wireless chargers because they were waiting for this thing. But to suggest that someone specifically bought an iPhone, Apple Watch or AirPods because they wanted the accessory and that there were a lot of people that did this? That is absurd. Which is why he hasn't bothered to respond with any evidence to back his claim. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416967">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Mike G is made the claim that people were buying lots of products in hopes of getting AirPower in the future. So, he is the responsible party for evidence. I am not. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#416650">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>That goes without saying but that's not the point I was trying to make</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416649">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>Once again you are at odds with reality. Apple demoed the product and let the press use prototypes when they announced it. A far cry from "nonexistent".</p><p><br></p><p>Nonexistent is something that didn't exist. Kinda of like when you said Apple faked their demo of HomePod in the keynote but there was no demo to fake. That is nonexistent. </p><p><br></p><p>Get on with our active imagination though. </p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><em><a href="#416649">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>How do you know it was marketing's fault and not engineering? Maybe a team in the hardware engineering group were confident that they had the technical hurdles figured out and convinced the marketing team that they could have it ready per a desired schedule? The fact that Dan Riccio, SVP of Hardware Engineering, gave the announcement of the cancellation and apologized for it, tells me it was engineering's fault, not marketing. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416661">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>He knows everything, just ask him. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416677">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>I like that you side step your history of making up shit. </p><p><br></p><p>You also sidestep "nonexistent" in favor of making yourself an expert on how Apple does software development. If I remember correctly you pretend to be a former Microsoft employee or contractor but not Apple. Anyway, the reality is if they had a physical product to demo then it wasn't "non-existent", it was existent. It was certainly misguided to announce and demo it but you continue with your fantasy world. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416682">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>I guess we can argue definitions, but I believe in the context of products, an "existing" product is one that is produced and offered for sale. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416690">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>I have no issue with that but in the context that Mike used it he said"</p><p><br></p><p><em>"</em><em style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">That's what happens when sales and marketing announce a product that engineering hasn't even begun to figure out how to make."</em></p><p><br></p><p>So his use of "nonexistent" was very much literal and very much incorrect as the product was demoed when it was announced. Thus it both existed and clearly engineering had started to figure out how to make it. </p><p><br></p><p>There are various folks who post here that inexplicably have their egos invested in the success and failure of companies. Personally I think that is a little weird, but Mike is particularly interesting because he goes beyond the "they suck" kinda commentary and creates fantasies and states them as fact when the are demonstrably false. That is a special kind of loopy.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#416661">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>We don't absolutely know for sure, but marketing promising more than engineering can deliver in the time allotted is a very common scenario that most experienced engineers are aware of. When was the last time a SVP of marketing publicly apologized for anything?</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#416649">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>Love to read apple fan butthurt replies</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#416775">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>butbut apple is the best they couldn't figure out such a simple device? and if something goes wrong just blame the user as usual</p>
provision l-3
<p>It's a bummer the product got canned it seemed like a good idea. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#416657">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>Goood "idea"? There are already products like this, just not overpriced invented by apple and without a shiny bitten apple logo on it</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#416755">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>Cool, which product on the market has the same features that AirPower was supposed to have?</p>
dontbe evil
<p>ROTFL</p>