Phone charging stations—will they increase or become obsolete?

[empirestate]

This is something I often wonder when I see people charging their phones in random places in public. We've all seen them sitting on the airport floor near a wall outlet, or clustered up in a college hallway, or asking the bartender for a plug-in behind the bar. Though some places such as airports, libraries and coffee shops offer charging stations or plentiful outlets, they are still far from ubiquitous (and often in short supply even where they are offered).

Eventually, however, one of two things is bound to happen, and I'm curious which one you all predict it will be. Either: a) charging amenities will become more frequently offered until they become completely commonplace, much the way parking lots did after automobile travel took over. (It may not take the form of more and better charging stations; it could just be a change in the way regular power outlets are deployed in buildings of public accommodation.)

Or: b) technology will change such that our electronic devices no longer need to be charged, at least not frequently or in such a way that we need to allow for a time and place to do it in public. My prediction is inclined towards this option, since technology seems to develop at a much faster pace than building design, and I haven't noticed any great push to provide better charging options outside of a few specialized markets like airports and cool-people neighborhoods.

What's your guess?

[corco]

Yes, b) for the reasons you  mentioned.

[Thing 342]

I do think that b) is more likely to happen, since charging technology is moving at a much faster pace than building design. A common problem with these phone charging stations is that they seem to charge ultra-slowly (I suspect at the USB-Data spec of about 0.5 A), and generally render your phone unusable while charging. I'm much better off just carrying my phone's quick-charge charger, which can charge my phone to ~75% in about half an hour, around and finding an open power outlet.

[SP Cook]

A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility.  However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.

[jeffandnicole]

In theory, B would work.  Today's phones have much better and longer battery lives than phones just a few years back.  But, the phones are also more powerful, brighter, bigger, contain more memory, etc. 

So if you want to retain a limit on certain technologies from years ago while using today's battery technology, you can get by going days without charging a device.  But if you want today's modern technologies, you're going to have to continue to charge that battery!

[empirestate]

A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility.  However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.

Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively be charged.


iPhone

[lordsutch]

My understanding is that there's deep skepticism that battery technology can advance much more than it already has, so while devices probably will become more power efficient over time people will likely find new reasons for phones and tablets to draw the same power they already do (higher-density screens, larger displays, more sophisticated sensors, higher speed connectivity, etc.). So I don't see the need for public mobile device charging going away anytime soon.

And the trend is definitely toward ubiquity of charging. When airplanes go into the shop to get new seats, they're almost always including USB ports and often 110V outlets as well. It's an expected amenity on high speed rail and finding its way into commuter rail as well.

[empirestate]

My understanding is that there's deep skepticism that battery technology can advance much more than it already has, so while devices probably will become more power efficient over time people will likely find new reasons for phones and tablets to draw the same power they already do (higher-density screens, larger displays, more sophisticated sensors, higher speed connectivity, etc.). So I don't see the need for public mobile device charging going away anytime soon.

You're right to point out that, even though technology improves, our demands on it seem to increase just as rapidly. Whereas I used to boot up my whole computer with just an 800kb floppy, I now seem to require storage in the tens of gigabytes for the system alone.

And the trend is definitely toward ubiquity of charging. When airplanes go into the shop to get new seats, they're almost always including USB ports and often 110V outlets as well. It's an expected amenity on high speed rail and finding its way into commuter rail as well.

Trains and planes, sure. But I'd still call that a fairly niche market (a big niche, perhaps, but a niche regardless); I'm not seeing that ubiquitousness in my day-to-day routine such as at workplaces and restaurants. Though perhaps that's because my day-to-day routine takes place in New York, where the on-to-go nature of things means that there's both a bigger need and a bigger challenge for getting devices charged. I'd probably never notice this if I had a desk I was at all day, and any interval in my time involved a trip in my car where I could catch up on a quick charge.

[vdeane]

In large part, there wasn't any motivation to improve batteries before laptops, smartphones, etc. became the norm.  There have been a few efforts at increasing power storage that appear to be very promising (notably, capacitors, geographer, and lithium gel) but they tend to vanish into oblivion for some reason.  I'd say there was a conspiracy, but I don't see why someone would want to hold back power storage technology.

Of course, if humanity ever invents micro-fusion, it would be moot.  But micro-fusion requires two technological advances that humanity is extremely unlikely to achieve in the near term (cold fusion and teleportation).

[noelbotevera]

Really, tech is moving fast. But it will take a while before wireless charging becomes a norm (but at best I'd say this'll last for about 5-7 years before wireless charging kicks in). I will say b), but for now I'd say a), because charging ports should be the norm for buildings right now.

[GaryV]

A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility.  However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.

Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively be charged.


iPhone

How, from picking up waves in the air or something?

There may eventually be a swap-out battery device that can be charged up at home.  You have 2 of them and switch every day or so.  One will always be charged if you remember to do it after you swap the fresh one in.

[empirestate]

A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility.  However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.

Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively be charged.


iPhone

How, from picking up waves in the air or something?

Who knows? Things that are solar do it this way. Now I'm not sure we'll ever see solar iPhones, but the fact that something like this exists already for certain applications makes it easy for me to picture it for smartphones. But don't be misled into thinking I can picture it clearly enough to file a patent just yet!

[Duke87]

Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.

There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.


As for charging without a cord, aside from solar power it is entirely possible to achieve via induction. Devices that use this technology already exist, it is typical for electric toothbrushes. To have the phone not need to actively "be charged", it would seem this could in theory be achieved by integrating induction chargers into objects the phone routinely spends some time adjacent to - nightstands, car seats, train seats, desks/tables, and so forth.

[ET21]

Most likely option B. I have never used a charging station though. Between portables and car chargers, I get enough power

[empirestate]

Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.

There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.

But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?

[jeffandnicole]

Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.

There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.

But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?

As mentioned, it goes hand in hand.  Yes, batteries will get stronger while remaining the same size or becoming smaller.  But there's gonna be more available on that phone to use.  So the net result is battery life will remain about the same.

[Pete from Boston]

There are new charging kiosks on the sidewalk here with a solar panel and a whole lot of advertising on them.  It's a little impractical, especially as it gets to the time of year when people don't want to stand around outside.

The best implementation I've seen of public charging is a bank of 10 or 12 indoor mini-lockers in a stack, doors about 4x6 inches apiece, where for $2 you set a password, hook up to one of the cords in an available locker, and walk away unconcerned about the security of your device while it charges.

And having recently upgraded by several generations of phone, I'll agree that all the new ways it has to devour energy cancel out the substantial increase in battery life.  The most compelling argument I have heard for the gargantuan iPhone 6s Plus (aside from it being the Large Print version for, um, mature folks who need this) is that it allegedly has twice the battery capacity of the 6s.  How much more of this is consumed by its enhanced screen and camera, I don't know.

[SteveG1988]

I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.

[empirestate]

Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.

There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.

But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?

As mentioned, it goes hand in hand.  Yes, batteries will get stronger while remaining the same size or becoming smaller.  But there's gonna be more available on that phone to use.  So the net result is battery life will remain about the same.

Sure; there will be an increased demand for performance, no doubt. My point, though it's not important, was only that cost and size are factors that are mitigated by technology, rather than being a separate reason.

[lordsutch]

I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.

I haven't seen a phone charger that was single-voltage in a decade. The main issue is the plug.

Planes usually have a "universal" socket that will accept the most common designs (American/Japanese, Europlug, UK/Ireland/HK). They're even creeping into hotel rooms in Europe.

[cl94]

Induction technology exists for phones as well. Qi standard. My Galaxy S6 has the technology. I'll probably buy an induction charger at some point, but I have a quick charger that does 2.5A. Qi only goes up to 1 because it loses current due to the induction process.

[Pete from Boston]

Induction technology exists for phones as well. Qi standard. My Galaxy S6 has the technology. I'll probably buy an induction charger at some point, but I have a quick charger that does 2.5A. Qi only goes up to 1 because it loses current due to the induction process.

iPhones do not have this technology.  My local Starbucks has the charging spot in the tables, but for phones without the built in ability to receive the charge they have special adapters available to borrow from the front desk.

[ZLoth]

The need for the charging stations is because of the design of the cell phone itself. All iPhones and some other phones (*cough* Samsung S6 *cough*) are designed to have non-replacable batteries. (At least, not without dismantling the phone!). Thus, the need for either charging stations or the external USB battery packs.

[realjd]

I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.

I challenge you to find any consumer electronic device that doesn't have a dual-voltage charger or power supply. Really only things like appliances and hair dryers are single voltage anymore. People don't even really travel with transformers anymore since a simple plug adapter is sufficient.

[english si]

Really only things like appliances and hair dryers are single voltage anymore.

Indeed, only really high-power devices have issues.

And Europe has total compliance, even if the UK-style plugs are different (and waaaay better than the other types - mostly as our house wiring used to be total shite) - the voltage is a standard 230V with some leeway either side (to meet UK/Ireland's 240V and everyone else's 220V without requiring a change).

America's low voltage is the big issue why kettles, hairdryers, etc have to be different either side of the Atlantic. No such issue exists when it comes to either side of the English Channel/La Manche. The frequency is different on the different continents too.