Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Starbuck's Wireless Charging Stations Won't Work With Most Devices

timothy posted about a month ago | from the gotta-start-somewhere dept.

Power 114

Lucas123 (935744) writes Starbucks today announced that after beta-testing wireless charging in several locations, it will roll it out to all of its cafes in the U.S. Unfortunately, the Powermat wireless chargers they chose to use doesn't support the overwhelming number of mobile devices that are enabled for wireless charging using the Qi standard. Of the 20 million consumer devices estimated to have shipped in 2013 with wireless charging capabilities, nearly all were built with the Qi specification, according to IHS. The majority of the Qi technology was built into devices such as the Google Nexus 4 and 5 smartphones, Google's Nexus 7 second-generation tablet and a number of models in Nokia's Lumia smart phone range. The battle between the three wireless charging consortiums is expected to continue to adversely impact adoption of the technology.

cancel ×

114 comments

Editors Won't Won't Edit (2, Informative)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | about a month ago | (#47225167)

Yeah...nice work on this headline.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about a month ago | (#47225183)

I wouldn'twant my devices to be worked on while at Starbucks anyway

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225203)

No, they ran spellcheck. It came up clean, so there can't be any errors!

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47225443)

Non, they ran spellchecked. It come up cleaned, so they're can't not be any error.!

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (2)

S.O.B. (136083) | about a month ago | (#47228877)

Ode to the Spell Checker

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225207)

It used to be nobody would RTFA. Now the editors won't even RTFH.

Re: Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about a month ago | (#47227759)

Nobody reads anything here any more we just post. You must be new here.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (2)

CmdrPorno (115048) | about a month ago | (#47225211)

Looks like the editors won't won't work either. Maybe they're all at Starbucks (which, by the way, editors, has no apostrophe).

How much does being a copy editor at Slashdot pay, and where can I pick up an application? Does the job include complimentary room and board at the Geek Compound?

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225227)

It would have an apostrophe in its current posessive form, although the apostrophe would come after the "s"...

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a month ago | (#47225271)

Maybe they're all at Starbucks (which, by the way, editors, has no apostrophe).

What, you mean this isn't an article about Galactica?

I feel cheated.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (3, Informative)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a month ago | (#47225629)

Maybe they're all at Starbucks (which, by the way, editors, has no apostrophe).

Actually, in the context of the headline, it *does* have an apostrophe, just not where they put it: Starbucks'

After all, the wireless charging mats belong to Starbucks.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47227295)

Actually, they don't belong to Starbucks. They're from a 3rd party (http://www.duracellpowermat.com/), so maybe Starbucks characterizes the wireless charging stations in a manner that is not genitive.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about a month ago | (#47225217)

So it's not opposite day?

.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month ago | (#47225379)

So it's not opposite day? .

Even on opposite day, it's not opposite day.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47226341)

Surely you mean:

Only on opposite day, it's not opposite day.

Re: Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47227169)

No, that isn't right.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

grub (11606) | about a month ago | (#47225257)

It's a double negative. In reality the wireless chargers work flawlessly.

You presume they CAN edit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225267)

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month ago | (#47225339)

What about this doozy?

the Powermat wireless chargers [plural] they chose to use doesn't support...

And who or what is IHS?

according to IHS

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (4, Funny)

Linzer (753270) | about a month ago | (#47228047)

And who or what is IHS?

Oh, that one's easy: it's Jesus. It's been a shorthand for his name since the 14th century.

See for example this [theartofpainting.be] :

The letters IHS were the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus IHSOYS, which stood for Yahweh. They could also be the abbreviation of ‘Iesus Hominum Salvator’, Jesus the Saviour of Mankind. The use of these letters as symbols of Christ may have originated with Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444) who made a plaque in Volterra with these letters inscribed, surrounded by rays of light.

So for clarity, they should have written:

Of the 20 million consumer devices estimated to have shipped in 2013 with wireless charging capabilities, nearly all were built with the Qi specification, according to Jesus, the Saviour of Mankind.

FTFY.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a month ago | (#47225369)

Figures that the first comment would be someone criticizing punctuation.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a month ago | (#47225705)

Normally I would agree, but I've come across so many mistakes lately, particularly in the output of people who get paid to write, that I'm now to thinking we should pursue this mercilessly until everyone who writes something more than three people are going to read proofread their text before publishing.

In other words, the price of violating the 3 foot rule [1] should be painful and lasting ridicule.

[1] The three foot rule: Don't Write Anything Unless You Have a Dictionary and a Thesaurus Within Three Feet of You. To which I would add, And A Copy Of Strunk and White.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a month ago | (#47226217)

How far away are dictionary and thesaurus websites?
Also Strunk and White is a hack job

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a month ago | (#47226361)

> How far away are dictionary and thesaurus websites?

Pretty far if you don't use them.

> Also Strunk and White is a hack job

I've heard it said that Strunk and White shouldn't apply to experienced writers, but this is the first I've heard that it's a hack job. The point I was trying to make is that writing well is more than just spell checking. Practically any electronic device that supports text entry also has a spell checker these days, but a spell checker only tells you that a word of that spelling exists, not that you've used it properly or that your text scans.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47227971)

I've heard it said that Strunk and White shouldn't apply to experienced writers, but this is the first I've heard that it's a hack job.

Then you haven't been hearing much... even the wikipedia page on the book has a few examples of the criticism towards the book.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47226351)

Please, find the mistake in your post.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a month ago | (#47226493)

Please, find the mistake in your post.

Oh, well done.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225405)

hahhaaahhhahaahhahah

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about a month ago | (#47225425)

You still clicked the link though ;)

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225473)

"the Powermat wireless chargers they chose to use doesn't support the overwhelming number of mobile devices that are enabled for wireless charging using the Qi standard".

No, Powermat doesn't support any mobile devices that are enabled for wireless charging using the Qi standard.

Re:Editors Won't Won't Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226905)

I don't understand what you think is wrong with it... unless... you're also a cylon!

I "Won't Won't" tell you the title is mispelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225175)

Timothy strikes again!

Finally! Something that won't not work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225193)

good good for them them.

Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225201)

Worked hard on formulating that title, eh? Mistakes in the summary can be excused I guess, but at least read the title once before submitting.

Why not just an outlet? (4, Funny)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a month ago | (#47225205)

Not only does this not support most devices, since most do not have wireless charging abilities, but it does not even support most wireless charging devices.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a month ago | (#47225239)

'cause that ain't what the cool kids are doin', man

Re:Why not just an outlet? (2)

PRMan (959735) | about a month ago | (#47225287)

What about a MicroUSB cable? That would have supported 99% of stuff.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225335)

It's a liability as soon as some kid sticks it in his mouth. Saw it happen once...

Re:Why not just an outlet? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a month ago | (#47225451)

There is no way that would do any more than tingle a little and shock (sociologically). That is the reason you can handle them freely, as they are no more powerful than a battery; So their diodes an be handled without fear or even a minor shock (absent presence in mouth).

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225467)

At 5v, there's too much resistance even in a wet mouth to get anything more than a tingle. It would be harmless. Unless Starbuck buys some cheap, shoddy chargers from Sagitarron that occasionally short out and pass through line voltage...

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226233)

What about a moist vagina?

This IS Starbucks we are talking about.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a month ago | (#47225423)

Why not just a standard power outlet, or perhaps one with USB ports.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about a month ago | (#47225713)

What about a MicroUSB cable? That would have supported 99% of stuff.

Or just a USB plug. Side benefit -- you could have a remote computer secretly sucking the data off the phones.

Wait, never mind.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a month ago | (#47225839)

If you plug a Starbucks USB cable into your pocket computer, you are a fool

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a month ago | (#47225323)

Because people do not lug the charger around with them. There are issues with plugging into random usb ports.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225395)

There are issues with plugging into random usb ports.

Only if you have a shitty phone from a company that doesn't understand security (ie, Apple).

The only security that Apple takes seriously is preventing you from doing things with your phone that Apple doesn't want you to.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226183)

Your rant is predicated on a security hole that was plugged ages ago. Grow up.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about a month ago | (#47228159)

huh? issues can't travel thru 5VDC lines.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a month ago | (#47225361)

Because then they'd either have to track usb chargers, or customers would have to carry them around. Kind of removes the convenience for either party.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a month ago | (#47227129)

Since I don't have a car in which to plug a USB charger into a cigarette lighter socket, I often slip a charger into my backpack when commuting. Starbucks isn't ubiquitous in my country but other cafes don't seem to mind if I ask for free electricity for charging.

USB is quite common in some airport lounges these days. The freedom to just carrying around a usb cable would be an advantage - rolls up into a jacket pocket without the lumpy bits of an associated wall wart.

Obviously may require the expensive services of a certified electrician to replace the face plate on your wall socket with one that includes a USB port.(5 min job but at least where I'm from they charge a flat fee for a call-out)

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about a month ago | (#47225619)

Duracel's Powermat can be added to many smartphones by way of a case. Most Apple products are supported and they have agnostic products as well.

Where as Qi seems to be mostly built-in devices, so no grandfather (or father) support.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (2)

Belial6 (794905) | about a month ago | (#47225799)

There are plenty of QI charging solution that can be added to devices that didn't come with it. http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UT... [amazon.com]

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a month ago | (#47226239)

Doesn't matter, wireless charging is worthless anyway.
What a stupid idea.

Re:Why not just an outlet? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a month ago | (#47227093)

Or, Apple is about to announce a smartwatch with wireless charging, kicking off a swift and inevitable move towards it.

They'll be happy to sell you a compatible charger (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a month ago | (#47226091)

for only $19.99. :P

Re:Why not just an outlet? (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a month ago | (#47227051)

Here's a photo and a description of a USB adapter for the purpose of charging phones without native wireless charging support.

If you don't own a supported device, you'll be able to purchase a tiny, inexpensive receiver "ring" that plugs into your phone and lets you toss it onto the pad for recharging.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6... [theverge.com]

ERROR: Double Negative Inappropriate (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47225235)

From quickly RFTAing, we've got a problem with the double negative in the headline. iPhones and most non-Google phones don't support the Qi/Duracell Powermat "standard"... they might as well give us a USB port instead of that thing.

Re:ERROR: Double Negative Inappropriate (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a month ago | (#47225359)

In my local starbucks they provide wall sockets, near every chair. It works great.

Re:ERROR: Double Negative Inappropriate (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47226023)

Is there enough power there for your girlfriend to dry her hair yet?

Three mistakes in the headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225253)

1. Starbuck's
2. Won't Won't
3. Work Most devices

Well done. Have you lost a bet?

Re:Three mistakes in the headline (1)

mrxak (727974) | about a month ago | (#47228069)

Sometimes I wonder if the editors are just trolling us.

Sorry you can't have 120V/60Hz/10 Amp everywhere! (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47225259)

Let's think about why we need a public charging standard that's so limited... True outlet in public? That's an invitation for hair toys to the women...

Re:Sorry you can't have 120V/60Hz/10 Amp everywher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225281)

Or, more likely that MegaDong vibrator that seems to have become popular lately.

Re:Sorry you can't have 120V/60Hz/10 Amp everywher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225375)

Yes. There was a woman in Starbucks this morning pleasuring herself with a MegaDong. They had to gang together 4 outlets to power it.

Re: Sorry you can't have 120V/60Hz/10 Amp everywhe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225887)

Trains have power outlets now days

Wait until USB3 (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a month ago | (#47225289)

One that comes, all plugs will be power cords and everything will work together.

One Plug to Rule Them All
One Plug to Bind Them
One Plug to Find Them All
And in the power Blind Them

Re:Wait until USB3 (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month ago | (#47225393)

One that comes, all plugs will be power cords and everything will work together.

One Plug to Rule Them All
One Plug to Bind Them
One Plug to Find Them All
And in the power Blind Them

One plug to be inserted once, twice, thrice before it actually goes in.
You'll need to wait for USB 3.1 for reversibility.

So, hrm... They'll work with most devices, then ? (1)

Altesse (698587) | about a month ago | (#47225305)

Just sayin'

Re:So, hrm... They'll work with most devices, then (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47225477)

The new Duracell smartphone, I'm guessing?

You're all overlooking the point (4, Funny)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about a month ago | (#47225343)

See, Starbucks is good because they give you free charging. And Starbucks is good because most people cannot use it, so it will keep the power consumption low and thus make them more energy efficient. It's a win/win all around!

How To Use An Apostrophe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225373)

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/a... [theoatmeal.com] Read it, dammit!

suck it up! (2)

AndyKron (937105) | about a month ago | (#47225377)

Why would a charging station need a standard? If you're near EMF, suck it up!

Herpa derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225401)

They didn't suck Google cock... like the majority of Slashdotters. Shame!

Guess we know what iPhone 6 will have! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225441)

Starbucks and Apple are pretty tight. If Starbucks is rolling out wireless charging, I'd bet it's in advance of what the iPhone 6 will have (it's rumored to have wireless charging).

Re:Guess we know what iPhone 6 will have! (1)

Flytrap (939609) | about a month ago | (#47226053)

Mmmm... now that is an interesting angle that I have not seen expressed in any of the other comments.

Re:Guess we know what iPhone 6 will have! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47226389)

I simply assumed the current iPhones have whatever system Starbucks is using.

I don't own one myself, so don't know what they have, or what common accessories people buy.

Re:Guess we know what iPhone 6 will have! (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a month ago | (#47226805)

That is because it is simply wrong. Apple is not listed as a member of the Power Matters Alliance [powermatters.org] , which is the competing standard of wireless power that Starbucks used. Both Starbucks and Powermat are represented on the board of directors [powermatters.org] for the alliance, so it is unsurprising which technology they chose for their coffee shops.

Tracking you and selling your information (5, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a month ago | (#47225503)

And here's the reason:

"The PMA also champions a magnetic inductive wireless charging technology that requires a more tightly coupled link between the charger and device. In addition, the PMA developed an open network API for network services management. So, for instance, Starbucks would be able to identify mobile devices charging in its cafes and gather usage pattners or target users with marketing and advertising."

So they'll give up convenience for most of their (high end phone wielding) clientele for a swipe at tracking you and selling you and your information. The decision makes sense in that light. Nothing is free, not even free wireless charging. Unless, of course, Apple decides to weigh in with the PMA this fall, in which case there will be a huge batch of high end, security poor sheep ready to fleece.

Re:Tracking you and selling your information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226741)

They likely already do some of this by examining your device via the free wifi.

Re:Tracking you and selling your information (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a month ago | (#47227141)

Unless you bother to switch your USB connection to ultra-tinfoil-hat 'charge only' mode, they possibly have device-id related info when you plug a phone into their USB sockets.

surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47225551)

just goes to proof that d48nk8ng coffee doesnt make u smart.

Re:surprise (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a month ago | (#47225637)

just goes to proof that d48nk8ng coffee doesnt make u smart.

Starbucks frowns upon people bringing coffee into their establishments.

power outlets (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about a month ago | (#47225685)

Maybe instead of dicking around with stuff like this, they could invest in having more than set of outlets for patrons at their stores.

Core Compentencies (3, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month ago | (#47225929)

Starbucks should give up on coffee and focus on it's core strength - having a bunch of hipsters sit around and write their screenplays.

What a waste of effort (3, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a month ago | (#47225935)

Not just because they picked the wrong standard. (I'm picturing Gil Gunderson making the pitch.) The real problem is that wireless charging doesn't transfer very much power. My new phone has a 2 amp charger but it gets less than half that thru a wireless charger. 2 amps can get me a good chunk of charge in 20 minutes. Wireless can't. If I'm low enough that I need to charge on the go, I need the maximum current that my device can handle.

A wireless charger is fine for keeping the phone topped off at my desk where the phone's sitting for hours with the display off. It's pretty much useless when I'm only going to be sitting for a few minutes.

Just put an outlet at each table and be done with it. You know they had to run power to the wireless systems so it would have been simple to install outlets.

Re:What a waste of effort (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47225967)

Just put an outlet at each table and be done with it. You know they had to run power to the wireless systems so it would have been simple to install outlets.

An outlet in a retail location requires conduit. A phone charger runs on low-voltage DC and only requires a nearby outlet, not one directly at the point of charging. Too bad they picked a standard people don't have in their phones. Probably it was free.

Re:What a waste of effort (2)

PPH (736903) | about a month ago | (#47226121)

An outlet in a retail location requires conduit.

Already done. Starbucks has wired most of their shops to accomodate people who want to plug in laptops. Simple combo USB/AC outlets would handle phones as well. No special (licensed) technology needed.

I wonder if Starbucks went this route because the Powermat technology includes unique device IDs in every receiver.
<sarcasm>Gee, I wonder what they could do with yet another ID assigned to a customer.</sarcasm>

Re:What a waste of effort (1)

Njovich (553857) | about a month ago | (#47227233)

Yeah, because there's no way to abuse a USB port from a piracy perspective.

Re:What a waste of effort (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about a month ago | (#47227783)

While I agree with you, I'm hopeful this will change, and that in a few iterations of this technology it'll be fast.

Honestly, I've had so many times my phone has just gone low battery or run out of battery, it would be refreshing if I could just go into a coffee shop, grab a cappuccino, and come out with a fully charged phone.

(Yes I realize I can do this if I carry my charger with me, but come on, who wants to do that?)

Re:What a waste of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47228617)

My new phone has a 2 amp charger but it gets less than half that thru a wireless charger. 2 amps can get me a good chunk of charge in 20 minutes. Wireless can't.

Apparently it can get you about half a good chunk of charge?

Obligatory Betamax joke (1)

dhaines (323241) | about a month ago | (#47226107)

I mean HD-DVD...

the clue is the last line. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226163)

Three competing standards, and it looks like of them just gave a fat backhander to Starbucks to help try and catch up with their competitor who is clearly way ahead of them.

The correct perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47226203)

Duracell Powermat attempts to catch up to the more popular Qi with a new deal with Starbucks.

Re:The correct perspective (1)

Enry (630) | about a month ago | (#47226355)

There's no way the editors will go with that - it's true, written in proper English and there are no misspellings.

Could be useful (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about a month ago | (#47226327)

If they market heated coffee mugs that work with this technology.

So the people behind the competing standard... (1, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about a month ago | (#47227097)

So the people behind the competing standard... claim that the PMA devices won't work with "the vast majority" of devices that are out there, yet according to this article: http://bgr.com/2013/04/17/sams... [bgr.com]

It's going to work with Samsung, HTC, Google, Blackberry, and LG devices.

What exactly are these "vast majority" Qi devices, and who is building the things, because it's not these guys...

Re:So the people behind the competing standard... (3, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month ago | (#47227905)

Apparently most of the phones already out in the market use the Qi standard, like the Samsung S4 and S5, the Nexus 4, 5 and 7 and a bunch of Nokia phones.

Maybe the Samsung S6 and future Nexus devices will support PMA but none of the current ones do.

The game is over here is why (2)

IPAQ2000 (585706) | about a month ago | (#47227147)

The last time Starbucks adopted a technology like this was in 2001 when they chose WiFi - a move that then settled conflicting standards and made WiFi what it is today. Starbucks today is 5X its size in 2001, so you can imagine the excitement.

Re:The game is over here is why (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about a month ago | (#47228175)

TIL that wireless internet is ubiquitous because of starbucks. Who would've thought!

Starbuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47228497)

What did she do this time? Did the wireless charging companies piss her off or something?

Battlestar Galactica, if it wooshed

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...