132
Big Galaxy S24 leak reveals Samsung's strategy against Google's Pixel phone
(www.androidcentral.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
132 points (90.7% liked)
Android
27993 readers
206 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Considering that we just saw hyperloop die with over 500 million invested... conmen it's more likely than you think. The fact that people like you believe that physics even allows this to work is literally what allows them to continue the con. Qi charging barely works... inverse square law proves that we cannot do more than a few inches for anything that will be sufficient for a phone and the waste power to do it will be ginormous.
https://www.ossia.com/
https://www.ossia.com/blog/cota-forever-magnetic-charger-wins-ces-innovation-award
It did win ces awards. Now that may be a good or a bad thing. But it's not vaporware.
They have products out that work.
Okay... Where can I buy this product?
Notice that the company was started in 2013... And those "products" they have are literally impossible to purchase (I actually even signed up for "contact me!" to purchase one I'll let you know if I get any information back... I'm willing to bet no.). This is sign 1 that this is bullshit. Notice that different materials show wildly different designs for products, none of which matches up to the actual product page. If something actually existed, it would look the same everytime we observed it... because you know... it's real. Notice there's no videos of the product actually working, just a produced video claiming it's a live functions test... Except it's a produced video. https://youtube.com/watch?v=HEfPgx51cas . The video claims that you can selectively stop charging things... That's not how wireless antennas work at all. You can beamform to some extent, but if a device is near to another device that has an active beamformed lobe, you're going to end up charging both(so they lied in the video). The video also uses a fuckton of terms RF terms really poorly. And they themselves admit it's 1W of power. The shittiest of usb chargers charge at 12W (5v x 2.4amp). You will charge 1/12th the slowest charger, and isn't actually even enough to trigger the "charging" notification in your notification bar. Further notice that the UI shows "zigbee ID" information. Zigbee is an already existing wireless mesh communications platform, typically used for IoT devices. The BEST zigbee controller chips already use 1/10th of your power budget. One of the major usages of Zigbee is controller lights and stuff... It's much more likely that they built a "charging case" that is just an LED and battery that they can flip the light on and off to make this BS video.
It is vaporware when we're talking about purchasable products... and you can't/never could purchase it.
There's been dozens of company's claiming that this can be done. They've all failed. None of them have brought a viable product to market. Exactly the same story as hyperloop, where every company lied and failed to produce.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lDdRVtka0Jg Other companies have even published ACTUAL attempts at "real world demonstrations". Which have been proven to be bullshit. (starts at 17:40) I'm sure youtube will link you to the other dozens of these products that EEVBlog themselves have debunked by walking through the materials and calculations. If you can point to even ONE Thing that OSSIA is doing different than the other 10 companies doing the same damn thing (poorly) then I'll eat every fucking work I've written. But it's all bullshit, putting 500W into a sending unit and only 1W comes out the other end, and often times barely.
Now the best part! The FCC limits transmission power anyway! You want to charge 10 cellphones at their rated 12W slow charge? You actually CANNOT. FCC doesn't allow an antenna in any form to push that much power without licensing. And I mean amateur radio type licensing. Snippet stolen from someone else that I copied a long while ago:
So if you can't even be near the transmitter for fear of actual danger to the subjects... How the fuck are you going to charge things that are in range if you're not even allowed to be in range?
(I have nothing to add here, I just want to say that I deeply appreciate you and that people providing exhaustive breakdowns of this nonsense is incredibly heartening to see)
Gosh and golly, a CES award! Man! Thats just so impressive! Jeeze if they're doing that well, they must have a really good product! Maybe next year they'll have refined it so much they win a red dot design award, that would surely be their Fifty-To-One moment! Or maybe even, dare to dream, a JD Power award! Talk about underdog victories!
I know. Ces award. It actually got 7. I don't know what that says.
In any case. It has products and is bringing another to market. Will it work ? Your guess is as good as mine. Companies have partnered so they obviously think it's worth while. If the product is a flop then can say for sure.
(I haven't slept in entirely too long so my apologies if my prose is somewhat lacking here)
CES awards really are deserving of my initial sarcasm. Most of these awards are. You usually can't literally just buy them, but the process is pretty much no different. There's no evaluation of quality, effectiveness, or even basic things like "does it meet the claims made on the box" made before they're given out. And I hate to pull the 'godwin's law' of investor cautionary tales, but take Theranos. How many awards did it win? I don't know, because I got bored counting after thirty, but they clearly didn't mean much. And I'll grant you, it's not the perfect example I'd like it to be, because Theranos' claims were based on medical biology and that's a bit out of scope for what would be reasonable of CES judges in a perfect world and Ossia is first-year physics or the HAM extra exam.
What my point here is, is that we already have this technology, and it's used every day. But the applications here are incredibly specific: inventory control, both realtime monitoring and loss prevention (RFID tattletail stickers are on everything nowadays) and similar applications, where it powers essentially an RFID tag that consumes power in the microwatts. There are systems that can transmit Watts of end-point power, but those systems are close range (3'-4') and very dangerous for humans to work around. It's radiation, man!
Look, it's just physically not possible for them to be transmitting the power to run (examples taken from their website) [a television, your Phone, a tablet] over any great distance (more than 3"-4"), and have that device be safe for people to be around. Yes, microwave power transmission is possible, famously you can heat your coffee on a field broadcast transmitter, but it's not possible to provide an end result of ~5W of power across your living room without incidentally giving you some novel form of skin cancer. Even their directed antenna tech just... can't change the laws of physics like this.
Ok I grasp all that. Pie in the sky.
https://www.space.com/space-solar-power-satellite-beams-energy-1st-time
What about this kinda stuff ?
And roads that charge cars as they drive.
Isn't that the same tech.
Even just a watt or 2 to the phone. Wouldn't need to charge it just slow down the rate of discharge.
I have no background in science. I can't math so science doesn't work for me. I have to take information from what others state.
I can verify by researching it but other than than. 2 statements could be factually correct or inherently wrong.
MAPLE, which is super cool:
As I understand it, the primary goal of the MAPLE project is to demonstrate interference beam management on a space-borne object, which is incredibly cool. I'm not able to find the actual paper (it's very possible it simply hasn't been finished yet, it looks like the experiment is ongoing) but it's extremely interesting technology. However, atmospheric attenuation is going to reduce the power from what sounds like maybe a milliwatt to infinitesimal amounts. The reason this technology might be able to beam power to anywhere is that being in space means you have access to essentially unlimited power. There's no real-estate concerns, so you can put as many solar panels as you want up there, and thus you don't have to care about losses.
Obviously there's some engineering realities that might conflict the "unlimited power" bit, but I'm glossing over things like we have a limited amount of silicon with which to make solar panels and so forth. However, since this technology is in it's absolute infancy, it's hard to draw conclusions. It may not work at all, and the power being beamed down is in a unit smaller than nanowatts. It's just too new of a technology to know if it even works, given these articles are from about 6 months ago and are talking about the 6 months worth of data crunching the team has to do, I really doubt we'll hear anything substantive any time soon.
Roads that charge cars:
These will never work. Not for theory reasons, but engineering realities I won't gloss over. To be clear, there's no physics-founded reason we couldn't stick multiple overlapping inductive loops on the surface of every single road and power cars that way, it's just that inductive charging is incredibly inefficient, so the power you're pumping through all those loops in every road to charge up an electric car will be astronomical. And god forbid there's potholes, exposing those insanely high amperage coils. (And before you ask, the dwell time of an electric car at a red light is so short as to be practically nonexistent). This is the same issue as the solar road tiles - it just doesn't work to do it like this, and there's much better and more efficient ways to use those resources that would go into the roads. And no, inductive coupling like in these roads is not RF-to-DC power transmission (unless you want to get really really pedantic about particle physics...)
A watt or two to trickle feed the phone:
Unfortunately there's this thing called the inverse-square law, which doesn't stop applying even when you have highly directional antennas. I'll spare you the math (lets be honest, I'm too lazy to type and format it all up), but the takeaway is that to get a couple watts you'll need hundreds of watts being output by the transmitter, and that's just for a couple feet of transmission. And lets be clear, this is absolutely not safe. "This is literally radiation damage to your cellular structure" levels of not safe. For a simulation of what it would take to get enough power to meaningfully charge a phone at 10', go jam something into the door latch on your microwave, open the door and stand 5' away from it. That's the power we're talking about here. (please don't do this, it's an even worse idea than it sounds). It would be illegal to sell transmitters this powerful for consumer applications, because with much exposure it would kill you.
I want to be clear about something, systems that work on similar principals to this do work and they are in use today. You can even see videos of one of the umpteen billion "wireless power" companies that's pulled this same shtick on kickstarter or wherever, there's been dozens of them. They have videos of them charging a phone! Of course, they're not really charging the phone, they just use a capacitor bank that's trickle charged from an antenna array (which then pulses the charges so you phone trips into charging mode, but it won't actually charge, it will just turn the icon on on your phone...) or, in several cases, just a battery pack hidden off screen. The systems that do work, and that we have in operation, transmit minuscule amounts of power. Way less than you could use to light an LED. They're just used for powering incredibly lower power equipment, like RFID tags or the tattletale strips in stores. Power transmission just loses too much energy while being transmitted for this to ever be practical for anything more than that. Maybe MAPLE will change this, interference modulation turning out to be the holy grail of aiming ultra-tight beams, but I'm pretty skeptical that it will do anything on the consumer scale.
Appreciate the explanation and the thoroughness off it.
Valid. But there are products out there.
People like me believe. Ho there. Back your arse right up.
I follow along with what I am told. If someone says they can do it. Show that it can be accomplished. You pop up and say actually it can't and here's why.
Believing either of you is a toss up. Both come to the table with evidence.
At the end of the day the product will either work or it won't. Man went to the moon. 100 years ago they'd say can't be done. 200 before that and the ability to stream video over the internet would get you burnt for being a witch.
I'm sure science had fundamental laws but things change. Those laws aren't concrete. They are shown to exist but that doesn't mean things can't alter or impact those.
I can choose to believe.
I have invested in wattup. I think it's possible. Disney showed that it was possible. Just that an entire room was electrified and that you'd die of you went inside. We can mess with it.
Except they haven't shown anything. There's literally nothing on the market that works. Literally nothing. Over a decade of this "Technology" being developed and there's nothing to show for it.
What? What evidence have they shown? The only video that I can find from any of these companies "working" is them lying to you and using like 20 modules to come up with the 5v of power then need to trick a phone into thinking it's charging by pulsing a capacitor.
The difference is that nobody said that rules of physics and science outright disagrees. You cannot beat the inverse square law. This is much like the laws of thermodynamics. You don't just "change" them. The fact that people like you seem to thinks that laws of physics change is actually disturbing.
Uh what? Yes they are. You think that gravity just changes on a whim? That we discover some stuff and magically gravity will turn left? This is absurd.
That's true. But that doesn't make it any more possible to actually do.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4031486-energous-admits-wattup-unsafe-for-humans-and-cannot-get-fcc-approval This was published 7 years ago... They admitted it themselves... but you still "believe". Right? I hope you didn't invest much. That money has basically been lit on fire.
Did you look at the website? They have products in the market. They have them in warehouses. They are sensors using fractions of power. But it's still a product.
The videos showing it, the patents and again products.
They do change though. In space things work differently. And they also don't change but have been incorrectly observed. The way we see things. Experiment and then prove that when x does this y does this. But sometimes x does something because r was present but we didn't know that.
Not saying laws change. That whoever first theorized it wasn't correct. There was something else.
But this is a pointless argument. You are set in your ways. Science is great. I'm still invested in it and will purchase the product when it comes to market.
I'll wait. Check out reviews and then go from there. Either they have managed to overcome the limitations or they haven't.
If they haven't then company goes bust. End of story. Another scam to add to the list.
Yes I did... if you read my post, you would know that. Keep in mind that I even went to the Ossa site and ASKED to purchase it. I even utilized my companies name to do it. So if they don't respond to business to business purchases, they don't have a product. And guess what! still no response.
You do not need a functional product to apply for a patent. Most patents are patented before they're commercially viable... and most patents never go to market.
No they don't. Period. Nothing in "space" works any different than on Earth. We're talking about laws of physics. Not some random nerds observation of some very particular event. The LAWS of PHYSICS say this is impossible.
So what is it? is it on market, in warehouses etc... or is it unreleased and not on the market yet? You can't have it both ways.
They haven't. They admitted they haven't. Did you read my link? And you clearly didn't wait and check out the reviews. You said you invested in them... That's the opposite of waiting.
Let me help you and quote the parts that matter to show how absurd you are.
So it cannot work in the presence of people and they acknowledge that. Let's say this goes to market, everyone has one in the house now. How long before it fails to detect a 4 year old until it cooks the kids brain and it's pulled off the market? This literally isn't going to make it to mass market. It will NEVER happen, this CANNOT make it to market simply because it's not possible for the device to know where humans/pets/living creatures/AND EVEN PLANTS are in order to not fry them. Lick a nine volt battery... Then realize you want the air to literally be that.
This ALREADY proves that all the marketing is false. That every video that they have showing people in the same fucking room as a charging device is a LIE, so what evidence do they have of it being functional/working? Yet here you are sucking the corporate dick on this and not understanding that it's not just science that's against them. It's literally everything... Hell here's ANOTHER issue that they've yet to address... Wattup works at the 5.75 Ghz frequency. This is dead in between 5Ghz and 6Ghz wifi. Considering the power they're putting into the air... any place utilizing this product will literally cripple their Wifi network. You think anyone is going to allow that to happen? What will you look at on your phone since you don't have wifi but have "unlimited" power.
Edit: Oh and to prove I've read most of everything they've posted on their site... https://www.ossia.com/news
How many "firsts" can they post of the same item, months apart? Look at how big the receiver is on that camera that's supposedly in production (but you can't buy).
https://www.ossia.com/resources-library
Look at all the material here... Notice the complete lack in "firmware" and "applications" that work with the product. Remember the demo showing that it's managed? Where's the support portal for that? Just images, just marketing, just fluffy white papers.
Then that is very concerning, you tried to purchase and they didn't respond?
I get that but doesn't a patent need to be viable. Sound science. I can't patent something that isn't feasible.
Gravity changes in space. Black holes. Dark matter. Isn't that a Change. Nothing to do with nerd. Just stuff. The laws are laws on Earth.
Ossia a different company has products on warehouses. They are bring out a product. Similar to wattup.
Yeah I read that, the current system might not work but they potentially can bring something to market. Maybe not.
I don't think it's sucking the corporate dick. Just would be useful to have. Bigger batteries would solve the issue. But still.
Bit agro aye
I sent the contact us message last night. using the form https://www.ossia.com/contact. Since there's no other place to send anything nor any other methods of communications on the page. No response yet.
Yes you can. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html
(https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3216423.pdf) Let's spin a baby out of a woman. totally lets yeet a baby across the room and spin mom at 3 G's of force.
(https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5392735.pdf) Let's talk to dolphins!
(https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20040161257.pdf) Scroll to page 16 and read claim #9.
Nothing about a patent actually has to work to patent it.
No. Gravity is gravity and the laws of physics accurately account for things like how far away bodies are from each other which is how much gravity would affect a body. The laws of gravity doesn't change just because the effects a body feels has changed.
Nothing that they've been willing to sell me so far. Nothing that I've seen in many pages of searching. Can you point to a functional system in use in a warehouse? A listing for a logistics person to purchase the system? A partner retailer/reseller? Any companies that Ossia has partnered with to install this system? Heck, you invested in WattUp... Pull out the quarterly reports that you're entitled to as an investor. Any notifications that they've worked with any other companies at all?
So when I said people like you are the one's enabling the con... I wasn't wrong then was I? I don't disagree that the idea is cool... But it simply cannot be put into practice. It just doesn't work. Exactly the same as Hyperloop which was my original claim...
Only if you don't like sucking dick... Are you scared of being gay (yes I'm assuming your gender, it's funnier that way)?
I've never tried. Have a pretty severe gag reflex so doubt I'd enjoy it.
I really hoped Hyperloop world work too. Maybe that is the core of the issue. I'll look at the investor report. Pretty sure both companies had products in warehouses but would need to check again
Well that just about cinches it.
Well it means I put money down on an investment.
I'm sure you told the same thing to Tesla investors.
Can't be accomplished.
Time will tell
Tesla, the famed genius who 100 years ago was scamming rubes with the same impossble promises wattup is peddling? Kinda seems like time has told on that one.
Listen, Wattup isn't doing anything new. RF to DC has been around since... well, Tesla. We already use it in the insanely few applications where it's viable tech. You might even have a few RF to DC devices bolted to your house, solar panels. The problem is that Wattup doesnt have a literal star powering their chips. What was the last device you saw that was fully solar powered (calculator) - how much of the surface area was given over to that component? And how big are wattup's chips? yeah.
The power transfer Wattup promises is admittedly an impressive improvement in power while still staying within FCC guidelines, but go up one class of transmitter and you're back to playing with tech thats been around for a hundred years. We already use COTS parts for this for indoor mapping, thats what RFID inventory tags are. Or power over NFC devices. It's useful tech, but wattup hasn't shown ANY devices that actually hit their pie-in-the-sky performance goals ("recon drones"). One hour with a radio physics textbook and you too can do the math to understand why its never, ever going to happen. it's not a problem that can be innovated around, it's fundemental universal laws here.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4031486-energous-admits-wattup-unsafe-for-humans-and-cannot-get-fcc-approval
And admit themselves that they cannot do what they claim to do safely. Including things like form factor...
You come across as condescending and rude, and I hope you reflect onto he way you interact with people.
Huh, neat. Sincerely, what part of that seems undeserved? Here, I'll explain my perspective:
The parent comment that really caught my attention includes such wisdom as:
Which really just speaks for itself there. It's "both sides" but with easily disproved corporate claims, being advocated for as totally reasonable and "I choose to believe". It's like tech bro fundamentalism, but... lame (edit: lamer). Also, while calling me "not a tesla investor advocate" barely warrants being called an ad hominem attack, like... come on. I'm not above rising to personal attacks, especially when I can quite clearly lay out why they're an ignorant schlub. (also also, it's hilariously wrong. Tesla was a very good investment and anyone could see that, including me, who owned Tesla stock. It's er... slightly less so as time has progressed, but tenish years ago? yeah, jumped on that band wagon, worked out for me... Also, that's just... the dumbest insult. Like come on.)
I think you're so caught up in your own self-righteous drive for civil internet discourse you've forgotten that
1: Other people online are perfectly aware of the tone they communicate through their comments, and chose that tone deliberately.
2: Sometimes, being rude and/or condescending is totally reasonable.
Like for example here, where someone is seemingly advocating for people to invest in a company (or justifying their own stupid, stupid choice) that is at very best grossly misrepresenting the product, and at worst just doing straight up investor fraud. Also, a company where their product claims are fundamentally impossible, and I can back that up with math. I might have been raised in some wildly different culture than you, with wildly different values, but I will say that I suspect your culture and mine both put a high social value on calling out rampant BS when it runs the risk of affecting other people in your community. This? This worthy of being scorned.
Seriously, maybe consider getting a better grip on that high horse before it runs off and does something interesting with it's life.