Apple Cancels AirPower

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.”

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

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

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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.

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 101 comments

  • Richardsona39

    29 March, 2019 - 3:53 pm

    <p>[Checks date….hmmm not April 1]</p>

  • Pbike908

    29 March, 2019 - 3:58 pm

    <p>Sounds like apple is taking a cue from the "dump bad news on Friday afternoon" that has long been a favorite of DC politicos to minimize bad PR…</p>

  • Jeff.Bane

    29 March, 2019 - 4:06 pm

    <p>They could not make a charging pad work in a subscription model.</p>

    • mestiphal

      29 March, 2019 - 4:29 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416570">In reply to Jeff.Bane:</a></em></blockquote><p>They didn't want to share their customers with the power companies</p>

    • djross95

      Premium Member
      29 March, 2019 - 4:43 pm

      <blockquote><a href="#416570"><em>In reply to Jeff.Bane:</em></a><em> </em>Lol, good one!</blockquote><p><br></p>

    • warren

      29 March, 2019 - 6:13 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416570">In reply to Jeff.Bane:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Or maybe Apple actually made a product that was extremely reliable…. therefore they decided to not ship it because they wouldn't be able to make a ton of money on repairs.</p>

  • codymesh

    29 March, 2019 - 4:13 pm

    <p>the first phone with wireless charging Lumia 920 announced in 2012, i'm surprised that wireless charging appears to have made almost zero advancements since then. </p>

    • remc86007

      29 March, 2019 - 4:18 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416572">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ironically, I'm now using that charger to charge my iPhone 8. Why Apple couldn't just release a device with two or three independent charging surfaces in one nice looking package is beyond me.</p>

      • bluvg

        29 March, 2019 - 5:09 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416575">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>Same. But then I read something saying that wireless charging affects the long-term battery health, so I went back to charging it by cable. Still miss my 920 though!</p>

        • remc86007

          29 March, 2019 - 11:00 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416582">In reply to bluvg:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you are worried about long-term device use, I'd rethink that. Your battery is going to degrade regardless of what you do to it. It might degrade slightly faster from the heat of wireless charging, but that might be offset by the slower charging rate being easier on the battery. Regardless; batteries are replaceable. You know what isn't replaceable? Charging ports.</p>

          • bluvg

            02 April, 2019 - 3:31 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#416699">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>All good points, and stuff I know already. Wireless charging is definitely a huge benefit given the wear and tear on ports. I can no longer find the source (or perhaps I dreamt it haha), but it cited Apple's own studies showing a significant impact of wireless charging on battery life vs. wired. Another consideration is environmental impact, given the relative inefficiency of wireless charging.</p>

      • Daekar

        29 March, 2019 - 5:17 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416575">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>Samsung has done just that. My wife and I have them on our nightstands so we can charge our work and personal devices without juggling them between pads. They're great, charge faster than the ones from 5 years ago, and even have very very quiet built-in fans to keep temperatures down. My iPhone 8 charges fine on them.</p>

      • bsd107

        Premium Member
        30 March, 2019 - 3:45 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416575">In reply to remc86007:</a></em></blockquote><p>Me too! iPhone XS also charges great on the JBL/Nokia speaker I bought for my 920 (just not the NFC pairing, which Apple STILL does not support)</p>

    • jgraebner

      Premium Member
      29 March, 2019 - 6:05 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416572">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>The Palm Pre had wireless charging in 2009, around 3 years before the Lumia 920.</p>

      • codymesh

        29 March, 2019 - 8:21 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416605">In reply to jgraebner:</a></em></blockquote><p>I had no idea, that's wild</p>

    • MikeGalos

      30 March, 2019 - 8:03 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416572">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>And the Qi standard, used in those Lumia chargers and devices and later in Apple devices but not yet chargers came out in 2010.</p>

  • jaredthegeek

    Premium Member
    29 March, 2019 - 4:22 pm

    <p>"Unexpected"</p>

  • ruusterc

    29 March, 2019 - 4:34 pm

    <p>so is this the time when apple calls microsoft to find out where they buried the surface mini so they can share the same hole because they were manufacturing these from all reports</p>

    • wright_is

      Premium Member
      01 April, 2019 - 3:56 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416579">In reply to ruusterc:</a></em></blockquote><p>Or ask Microsoft if they still have the contact details of the Nokia Qi team, who released Qi chargers nearly a decade ago…</p>

  • Daekar

    29 March, 2019 - 5:15 pm

    <p>So… what the hell, Apple? You finally started selling phones with wireless charging two whole years ago and still don't have chargers available? Samsung had this down 5 or more generations ago. I've got Samsung chargers, including two that have charging points for a phone standing upright and a wearable next to it, scattered throughout my house and workplace that have been reliably charging phones of various brands (including my iPhone 8) for years.</p><p><br></p><p>The future is wireless, and some of us have been living it for a good while now. Get your shit together or get left behind. If Samsung doesn't eat your lunch, Huawei will.</p>

    • rmlounsbury

      Premium Member
      29 March, 2019 - 5:21 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416584">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Hauwei probably would if US regulators weren't so xenophobic towards them. I do get not wanting to let a state run company supply your backbone networking gear. But the consumer space I'm guessing isn't a huge deal. </p><p><br></p><p>If I had to choose between a current gen MacBook or the Hauwei Matebook Pro (remove the OS from the discussion) I'd take the Matebook every day of the week at this point. </p>

      • Daekar

        29 March, 2019 - 6:33 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416587">In reply to rmlounsbury:</a></em></blockquote><p>Lord, you're not spouting that ridiculous xenophobia line too, are you? Jesus, people, just because you hear a lie repeated frequently it doesn't make it true, especially when there are SO many other possible explanations that make much more sense.</p><p><br></p><p>Think, please.</p>

        • cheetahdriver

          Premium Member
          29 March, 2019 - 7:10 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416633">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yeah, you don't KNOW either. There is enough smoke around this (not just from US sources) for me to think "Fire". It might not be the fire we have been told about, it might just be they are incompetent enough at fixing things (see the British report) that it simply isn't safe to use them. Or they might be leaving the backdoors open on purpose. </p><p><br></p><p>Who knows? More importantly, why take the chance when the damn F-35 requires Internet Explorer 11 to run ALIS. If we aren't careful, we are going to be running around figuring out how quickly we can un-mothball the Rhino fleet at Davis-Monthain after all the high tech crap that has been foistered on the Air Force suffers a "Cylon Kill" from the Chinese.</p>

          • Daekar

            30 March, 2019 - 7:09 am

            <blockquote><em><a href="#416652">In reply to cheetahdriver:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you misread my post. I didn't say they were or were not trustworthy, and I have regularly lamented our inability to know the facts. I simply think it's batshit crazy to blame the behavior of the federal government on racism when there are much more likely and rational explanations for their policy posture </p>

          • wright_is

            Premium Member
            01 April, 2019 - 3:59 am

            <blockquote><em><a href="#416652">In reply to cheetahdriver:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes, the reported back-door in the F35 systems last week was, well, interesting.</p><p>Everything from ordering parts that aren't needed, getting the flight systems to report failed components, taking over the flight controls, stopping takeoffs… Hopefully they can't turn off the avionics mid-flight.</p>

      • Xatom

        30 March, 2019 - 9:46 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416587">In reply to rmlounsbury:</a></em></blockquote><p>Let me fix this for you. Hauwei would if the US and other governments concluded having spying devices produced by the Chinese state intelligence apparatus in the hands of every citizen was a good thing. </p>

    • jgraebner

      Premium Member
      29 March, 2019 - 6:03 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416584">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Palm sold wireless chargers for the Pre back in 2009.</p>

    • wocowboy

      Premium Member
      30 March, 2019 - 3:58 am

      <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>

  • rmlounsbury

    Premium Member
    29 March, 2019 - 5:18 pm

    <p>They probably finally figured out and knew the price they had to charge based on the R&amp;D and cost to build the thing would never work and consumers would be smart enough to pass. So rather than put out a loss leader (because Apple likes to print money with their hardware) they just killed it all together. </p><p><br></p><p>This doesn't surprise me at all that Air Power never came to market. </p>

    • skborders

      29 March, 2019 - 7:38 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416586">In reply to rmlounsbury:</a></em></blockquote><p>This! </p>

    • bsd107

      Premium Member
      30 March, 2019 - 3:38 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416586">In reply to rmlounsbury:</a></em></blockquote><p>I disagree – Tim Apple would have been happy to charge $400 for it. And iFans would have bought a few….</p>

      • misterstuart

        Premium Member
        02 April, 2019 - 10:41 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416752">In reply to bsd107:</a></em></blockquote><p>I disagree. Apple can get away with a lot, but I doubt even Apple lemmings would be <em>that</em> stupid. </p>

  • blackcomb

    29 March, 2019 - 5:30 pm

    <p>Timmy can't do anything! LMFAO!!!</p>

  • skane2600

    29 March, 2019 - 5:32 pm

    <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

      29 March, 2019 - 7:23 pm

      <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

        29 March, 2019 - 9:32 pm

        <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

          29 March, 2019 - 9:56 pm

          <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 =&gt; 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>

          • Greg Green

            30 March, 2019 - 9:30 am

            <blockquote><em><a href="#416696">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>ARM is nowhere powerful enough to run a good desktop. But Apple has been putting old CPUs in their systems for so long, maybe it's a strategy to get users used to ARM in desktops and laptops.</p>

            • locust infested orchard inc

              30 March, 2019 - 10:28 am

              <blockquote><em><a href="#416806">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>The A series X SoCs are no slouch, and their performance gains on each successive generation is considerable when compared to that of Intel's CPUs.</p><p><br></p><p>When Adobe finally release Photoshop for iØS, the World will have a comparison of sorts in performance between the two chip manufacturers' silicon.</p>

          • skane2600

            30 March, 2019 - 12:16 pm

            <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

              30 March, 2019 - 12:40 pm

              <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&quot; 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.&nbsp;"</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 =&gt; hardly any developer is creating NEW native Mac or Win32 apps. Vast majority are just updates or new versions of existing apps</p>

              • skane2600

                30 March, 2019 - 12:50 pm

                <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

          30 March, 2019 - 1:30 pm

          <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

            30 March, 2019 - 2:44 pm

            <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

              30 March, 2019 - 3:15 pm

              <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

                30 March, 2019 - 4:47 pm

                <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

                  30 March, 2019 - 10:54 pm

                  <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

                  31 March, 2019 - 1:48 pm

                  <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

    29 March, 2019 - 6:37 pm

    <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>

    • MikeGalos

      29 March, 2019 - 7:06 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416634">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem isn't what Apple "was trying to accomplish" but what Apple announced they had accomplished and sold to a gullible customer base.</p>

      • provision l-3

        29 March, 2019 - 7:18 pm

        <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>

        • MikeGalos

          29 March, 2019 - 8:40 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416654">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>Actually, a lot was sold. iPhones and Apple Watches and AirPods that were, at least partly, sold on their ability to be wirelessly charged on the imaginary AirPower charger.</p>

          • provision l-3

            29 March, 2019 - 9:14 pm

            <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>

          • pecosbob04

            29 March, 2019 - 9:55 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#416675"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a><em> You really believe that?</em></blockquote><p><br></p>

        • pecosbob04

          29 March, 2019 - 9:52 pm

          <blockquote><a href="#416654"><em>In reply to provision l-3:</em></a><em> au contraire Mikey has two on order and waits for delivery each day until 3:00.</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p><br></p>

        • Daekar

          30 March, 2019 - 7:14 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416654">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>And other purchases were affected. For instance, my Mom has an Apple house and we held off buying her wireless chargers in anticipation of the Apple charger. That's two years of not buying from the competition because Apple would be releasing a product. </p>

          • provision l-3

            30 March, 2019 - 1:24 pm

            <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>

            • Daekar

              30 March, 2019 - 10:27 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#416866">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I have refused to buy phones without Qi for years, and I can imagine plenty of Apple buyers who purchased other products based on the understanding that they would have support for that capability in the form of official Apple accessories…which tends to be a big deal for Apple stuff in particular. In the Android world everything is compatible, but in Appleland you buy the official stuff.</p><p><br></p><p>I have no evidence, but neither do you.</p>

              • provision l-3

                30 March, 2019 - 10:47 pm

                <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

        29 March, 2019 - 7:34 pm

        <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>

  • alwayson

    Premium Member
    29 March, 2019 - 6:49 pm

    <p>Imagine my disappointment today after receiving my new AirPods with charging case yesterday. </p>

  • mikecolon

    Premium Member
    29 March, 2019 - 6:51 pm

    <p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I guess it was a hard computer science problem." – I LOL'd at that!</span></p>

  • MikeGalos

    29 March, 2019 - 7:04 pm

    <p>That's what happens when sales and marketing announce a product that engineering hasn't even begun to figure out how to make.</p><p><br></p><p>Vaporware in its purest form and hopefully the basis for some massive class-action lawsuits from people who bought iPhones and other Apple products in part based on their compatibility with this non-existent "product".</p>

    • provision l-3

      29 March, 2019 - 7:21 pm

      <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>

      • MikeGalos

        29 March, 2019 - 8:46 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416655">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure. And people saw a "demo" of VisiCorp's amazing Visi On product at Comdex 1982 when it hadn't actually been written yet. But they had a great demonstration faked – likely with an off-stage DEC VAX minicomputer. (That infamous demo was when Mark Ursino coined the term Vaporware).</p>

        • pecosbob04

          29 March, 2019 - 9:35 pm

          <blockquote><a href="#416676"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a><em> Mikey loves to visit the time when he thought he was relevant.</em></blockquote><p><br></p>

    • shameermulji

      29 March, 2019 - 7:39 pm

      <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

        29 March, 2019 - 7:47 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416661">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>He knows everything, just ask him. </p>

        • MikeGalos

          29 March, 2019 - 8:50 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416662">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why thank you provision. That's nice of you to notice. </p><p><br></p><p>Yes, a few decades inside the industry does give a person more insight than just reading, believing and rephrasing press releases. It's nice to see that appreciated. </p>

          • pecosbob04

            29 March, 2019 - 9:40 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#416679"><em>In reply to MikeGalos:</em></a><em> Mikey is a legend in his own mind!</em></blockquote><p><br></p>

      • MikeGalos

        29 March, 2019 - 8:48 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416661">In reply to shameermulji:</a></em></blockquote><p>I know that engineering wasn't close to ready because the code to support AirPower didn't show up in iOS for another two years. If they were close at the time of the demo they'd have had to have that code in place for testing near the time they were ready. You'll note that iOS code was "discovered" about a month ago and was heralded by the industry "press" that Apple was close to shipping AirPower.</p>

        • provision l-3

          29 March, 2019 - 9:12 pm

          <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

            29 March, 2019 - 9:40 pm

            <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

              30 March, 2019 - 1:21 pm

              <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>

          • pecosbob04

            29 March, 2019 - 9:49 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#416682"><em>In reply to provision l-3:</em></a><em> "</em>I like that you side step your history of making up shit." </blockquote><blockquote>Mikey has almost total recall of things that never happened. So he has that going for him.</blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p><br></p>

      • skane2600

        29 March, 2019 - 9:44 pm

        <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

      30 March, 2019 - 3:59 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416649">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>Love to read apple fan butthurt replies</p>

      • MikeGalos

        30 March, 2019 - 7:58 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#416757">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>They are adorable, aren't they?</p>

        • locust infested orchard inc

          30 March, 2019 - 10:19 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#416775">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Indeed. So much si, makes one wanna LOL at them for their zombified idolising practices.</p>

        • dontbe evil

          02 April, 2019 - 5:43 am

          <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>

    • steenmachine

      30 March, 2019 - 12:47 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416649">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>"massive class-action lawsuits"??? Y<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ou're delusional. </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Apple divulged what's in their pipeline, and could not deliver. </span>Product attrition is part of R&amp;D, either publicly announced or not. I can't sue a pharmaceutical company for a promising therapy if the molecule ends up causes safety issues and gets yanked from further development. </p>

  • provision l-3

    29 March, 2019 - 7:25 pm

    <p>It's a bummer the product got canned it seemed like a good idea. </p>

    • dontbe evil

      30 March, 2019 - 3:58 am

      <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

        30 March, 2019 - 1:13 pm

        <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>

  • gregsedwards

    Premium Member
    29 March, 2019 - 7:38 pm

    <p>What am I missing here? Aren’t there like a zillion Qi wireless charging products out there? What was the killer feature that proved too difficult for Apple to crack?</p>

    • rob_segal

      Premium Member
      30 March, 2019 - 12:12 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416660">In reply to gregsedwards:</a></em></blockquote><p>Overheating because of the number of coils Apple wanted to include in the charging pad so devices could charge anywhere in the pad facing any direction. Up to a couple dozen coils generates quite a bit of heat. </p>

    • Daekar

      30 March, 2019 - 10:21 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416660">In reply to gregsedwards:</a></em></blockquote><p>They wanted to make it WAY more difficult to manufacture than necessary for minimal gain in function. All modern chargers work in any orientation…it's why they're round. Our Samsung chargers even work with the phone standing in portrait or landscape mode on the stand, so no matter how you lay down your phone it still works.</p>

  • MutualCore

    29 March, 2019 - 9:11 pm

    <p>If this were Microsoft, the tech media would be dancing on their grave. Apple, nobody cares. They're already hyping up the iPhone Xi with 3 cameras.</p>

    • locust infested orchard inc

      30 March, 2019 - 10:14 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416681">In reply to MutualCore:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Too right. The tech media have other Apple announcements made this week to salivate upon, notably the Apple MasterCard (iMC).</p><p><br></p><p>Now the beloved herds shall be carrying at least two Apple products that they would not want to be seen without – their iNotch and their iMC.</p>

  • MikeGalos

    29 March, 2019 - 10:28 pm

    <p>Well, at least we have fewer choices left in the "Which will ship first? AirPower or the new Mac Pro".</p>

  • harmjr

    Premium Member
    30 March, 2019 - 12:48 am

    <p>Poor Brad Sams…</p>

  • wright_is

    Premium Member
    30 March, 2019 - 3:21 am

    <p>A hard computer science problem that Nokia solved nearly a decade ago…</p>

  • dontbe evil

    30 March, 2019 - 3:57 am

    <p>ROTFL</p>

  • nbplopes

    30 March, 2019 - 6:22 am

    <p>Mike brains seam to be quite active on this one 🙂 Yay :)</p>

  • j_c

    30 March, 2019 - 8:05 am

    <p>I get it. Apple is smug and arrogant and when they fail at these things it’s fun to watch. With that said what % of products have they announced that have never shipped and how does that compare to the % debuted by other companies every year at CES that never make it to market?</p><p><br></p><p>It seems like this was a product they thought would be easy to mass produce cheaply and sell for big profit. It wasn’t. They have lost interest in trying to make it work and have moved on. The “high quality” statement seems like a petulant public corporate slight at either the internal team or the manufacturers who couldn’t make it happen. The “this is the future” the final little dig to let them know just how bad they should feel about it.</p>

    • JerryH

      Premium Member
      30 March, 2019 - 10:00 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#416777">In reply to j_c:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well comparing companies showing off things at CES to a company getting up on a stage at their own release event and showing the thing off and even having a picture of it in the little guide in the box for the Airpods is quite different. The first (CES) is normal business – people use it to gauge interest and decide if they want to go forward with development. The second is a big fail.</p>

  • locust infested orchard inc

    30 March, 2019 - 10:32 am

    <blockquote><a href="https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/203981/apple-cancels-airpower#416770&quot; target="_blank"><em>Article headline, "Apple Cancels AirPower"</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>So it would seem the iFlatulence has become deflated. More hot air from Apple.</p><p><br></p><p>Much ado about nothing.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

  • red.radar

    Premium Member
    31 March, 2019 - 9:26 am

    <p>An embarrassment that could have been avoided if you announce the product when it’s ready. </p><p><br></p><p>I got the impression that engineering heard about the product at the keynote with the rest of the world … “we got to do what …!?!? “</p>

  • Davor Radman

    01 April, 2019 - 10:03 am

    <p>April 1?</p>

  • prabhat_800

    02 April, 2019 - 10:21 am

    <p>Oh that's very bad <a href="https://blog.techpathway.com/important-digital-marketing-trends-to-follow-in-2019/&quot; target="_blank">news</a>. I have this now what I have to do?</p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC