Is wireless charging bad for phones?

[veti]

Brief aside, before I get on with the actual question:

Spoiler

Show

I really hate it when Googling a question gives me 15 authoritative answers, all unanimously on the same side, and none of them addresses the question I actually typed in.

Because when I ask Google this question, it tells me in very... patient, ABC terms that no, wireless charging is not bad for phone batteries. Did I ask about batteries? I did not. I carefully left the word "battery" out of the query entirely. I don't understand batteries, and I don't care, as far as I'm concerned they're chemistry and chemistry is witchcraft, I'm happy to take the advice of people who understand that stuff but I have no aspiration to be one of them. No, I want to know about the rest of the phone.

And not one of these oh-so-reassuring-buy-our-tat-now merchants even mentions that.

OK, enough ranting. Sorry. Now to the serious question.

My partner's iPhone display weirded out a few months ago. We got it fixed, but last week it broke down again. So the heck with that, it's new iPhone time. But my partner had, for over a year now, been charging the old iPhone using a third-party wireless charger (because the original, wired connector was getting worn and frayed). Is it possible that that may have contributed to its abrupt breakdown?

Intuitively, it seems to me that an electromagnetic field that's strong enough to induce enough current to recharge a phone's battery, must inevitably also induce currents in all other parts of the phone as well.

Now, in most components - basically, each individual chip - the components are miniscule and therefore so will the currents be, rendering them unnoticeable. But there's one big exception: the screen controller. This is (inevitably) about as big as the screen itself, more than big enough (I imagine) to get quite an appreciable current flowing. It may even be more than the component itself is designed or tested to handle.

Someone, somewhere must know about this. I imagine some manufacturers have even tested it. But Google won't tell me about it, because the answer is drowned out by these spam merchants trying to sell me tat, who are, unanimously, being suspiciously specific in their cast-iron guarantees that it won't harm the battery.

Does anyone here know anything relevant to the actual answer?

[Trafalgar]

Brief aside, before I get on with the actual question:

Spoiler

Show

I really hate it when Googling a question gives me 15 authoritative answers, all unanimously on the same side, and none of them addresses the question I actually typed in.

Because when I ask Google this question, it tells me in very... patient, ABC terms that no, wireless charging is not bad for phone batteries. Did I ask about batteries? I did not. I carefully left the word "battery" out of the query entirely. I don't understand batteries, and I don't care, as far as I'm concerned they're chemistry and chemistry is witchcraft, I'm happy to take the advice of people who understand that stuff but I have no aspiration to be one of them. No, I want to know about the rest of the phone.

And not one of these oh-so-reassuring-buy-our-tat-now merchants even mentions that.

OK, enough ranting. Sorry. Now to the serious question.

My partner's iPhone display weirded out a few months ago. We got it fixed, but last week it broke down again. So the heck with that, it's new iPhone time. But my partner had, for over a year now, been charging the old iPhone using a third-party wireless charger (because the original, wired connector was getting worn and frayed). Is it possible that that may have contributed to its abrupt breakdown?

Intuitively, it seems to me that an electromagnetic field that's strong enough to induce enough current to recharge a phone's battery, must inevitably also induce currents in all other parts of the phone as well.

Now, in most components - basically, each individual chip - the components are miniscule and therefore so will the currents be, rendering them unnoticeable. But there's one big exception: the screen controller. This is (inevitably) about as big as the screen itself, more than big enough (I imagine) to get quite an appreciable current flowing. It may even be more than the component itself is designed or tested to handle.

Someone, somewhere must know about this. I imagine some manufacturers have even tested it. But Google won't tell me about it, because the answer is drowned out by these spam merchants trying to sell me tat, who are, unanimously, being suspiciously specific in their cast-iron guarantees that it won't harm the battery.

Does anyone here know anything relevant to the actual answer?

A wireless charger works by passing an alternating current through an induction coil creating an electromagnetic field. That field is received by an induction coil on the smartphone producing an AC current. A rectifier then converts the AC to DC which charges the battery.

All conductors have have some inductive capability but it takes an induction coil to gather enough current to cause problems. If something else on your phone could act as an induction coil, it too would receive an AC current. Transistors are not compatible with AC and would possibly become damaged.

I assume phone designers take this into account when designing a wireless charging phone and I am not sure of a scenario where a damaged component could act as a coil. Maybe one of the antennas? I don't know.

[Radar]

A wireless charger works by passing an alternating current through an induction coil creating an electromagnetic field. That field is received by an induction coil on the smartphone producing an AC current. A rectifier then converts the AC to DC which charges the battery.

All conductors have have some inductive capability but it takes an induction coil to gather enough current to cause problems. If something else on your phone could act as an induction coil, it too would receive an AC current. Transistors are not compatible with AC and would possibly become damaged.

I assume phone designers take this into account when designing a wireless charging phone and I am not sure of a scenario where a damaged component could act as a coil. Maybe one of the antennas? I don't know.

Considering that both coils (in the charger and receiver) have to aligned fairly precisely, I do not thing there would be any problem with stray field being accidentally absorbed by some other component of the phone. Especially not by any semiconductors. What may make a difference is that wireless charging is significantly less efficient, so there is a lot more heat produced during the charging. Sure, the power output of a wireless charger is lower to mitigate the problem, but a phone is still heated more than if it were charged by wire. This obviously cannot exceed specified temperature tolerance of all the components, but with a third party charger things might be different.

In short, All I know is my gut says maybe.

As for how to find the results you want, Google is a victim of its own popularity as pretty much everyone optimizes their content for being positioned high in the results up to the point of creating loads of sites filled with junk content just so they link each other. With the current ease of creating reasonably sounding text quickly (one of the bad consequences of AI development), Internet gets filled with gibberish (more than before) and it is all geared toward showing up high in Google search results. Alternative search engines may actually be better nowadays just because they are not targeted by marketing.

[veti]

All conductors have have some inductive capability but it takes an induction coil to gather enough current to cause problems. If something else on your phone could act as an induction coil, it too would receive an AC current. Transistors are not compatible with AC and would possibly become damaged.

I assume phone designers take this into account when designing a wireless charging phone and I am not sure of a scenario where a damaged component could act as a coil. Maybe one of the antennas? I don't know.

I'm sure that phones that are designed for wireless charging are properly tested. But this one wasn't. Wireless charging is a pretty recent thing, and the phone itself is more than five years old, the actual design even older.

Yes, the antennas must also pick up some current, but they'll be doing that all the time, it's how they work, so I'm reasonably confident they're specced and tested to cope with that up to, probably, quite a reassuring level.

The transistors are all on microchips, which I should think are simply too small to pick up any significant amount of current. Anyways, all commercial microchips for decades now have been specced to tolerate quite a robust level of EM interference, on general principles.

But the display controller is none of these. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it involves carrying currents the full length and breadth of the phone. And I'm *not* confident that it's as robustly hardened as the smaller components.

Edit: as for Google, I'd say it's a victim of what Corey Doctorow calls en****tification - the inherent conflict between "being useful" and "making money". It's travelled way down that curve by now, and shows no sign of wanting to back up.

[Radar]

I'm sure that phones that are designed for wireless charging are properly tested. But this one wasn't. Wireless charging is a pretty recent thing, and the phone itself is more than five years old, the actual design even older.

So the question is, if it was not designed for wireless charging, how was it charged wirelessly? This might be important here.

[DavidSh]

Apple says iPhone 8 (which came out in 2017 (more than 5 years ago, now)) had wireless charging, but iPhone 7 did not.

[Trafalgar]

I'm sure that phones that are designed for wireless charging are properly tested. But this one wasn't. Wireless charging is a pretty recent thing, and the phone itself is more than five years old, the actual design even older.

Yes, the antennas must also pick up some current, but they'll be doing that all the time, it's how they work, so I'm reasonably confident they're specced and tested to cope with that up to, probably, quite a reassuring level.

The transistors are all on microchips, which I should think are simply too small to pick up any significant amount of current. Anyways, all commercial microchips for decades now have been specced to tolerate quite a robust level of EM interference, on general principles.

But the display controller is none of these. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it involves carrying currents the full length and breadth of the phone. And I'm *not* confident that it's as robustly hardened as the smaller components.

Edit: as for Google, I'd say it's a victim of what Corey Doctorow calls en****tification - the inherent conflict between "being useful" and "making money". It's travelled way down that curve by now, and shows no sign of wanting to back up.

Passing a battery through an EM field will not charge it. It needs to be connected to an induction coil and a rectifier. What exactly is the phone? Wireless chargers are not that new a thing. I had a Samsung phone 10+ years ago that was capable of wireless charging.

I brought up the antenna because some antenna are coiled to make them fit into a tight space. But, on second thought, they would have to be coiled around a core so that's not likely. A conductor by itself is not going to receive enough energy. An antenna, for example receives a minimal amount of current that has to be boosted. Nothing like the wattage that an induction coil would receive from a charger.

If the problem you are seeing is a screen issue, it is likely due to the phone's age. Environmental conditions like temperature change and sunlight degrade screens over time. That's much more likely than a wireless charger doing it.

[veti]

Passing a battery through an EM field will not charge it. It needs to be connected to an induction coil and a rectifier. What exactly is the phone? Wireless chargers are not that new a thing. I had a Samsung phone 10+ years ago that was capable of wireless charging.

I brought up the antenna because some antenna are coiled to make them fit into a tight space. But, on second thought, they would have to be coiled around a core so that's not likely. A conductor by itself is not going to receive enough energy. An antenna, for example receives a minimal amount of current that has to be boosted. Nothing like the wattage that an induction coil would receive from a charger.

If the problem you are seeing is a screen issue, it is likely due to the phone's age. Environmental conditions like temperature change and sunlight degrade screens over time. That's much more likely than a wireless charger doing it.

OK, I finally found out it's an iPhone XR, which came out in 2018 and does indeed advertise wireless chargability as a feature. (Though even so, I'm not confident that means it's a fully tested feature. "Supporting" wireless charging is not quite the same as designing for it from the ground up.)

But thank you for your opinion. I'm disappointed that an expensive phone can simply wear out in just five years - heck, the screen on my cheap Android phone from around 2015 is still fine, though its battery life is shot - but it is what it is.

[Gnoman]

(Though even so, I'm not confident that means it's a fully tested feature. "Supporting" wireless charging is not quite the same as designing for it from the ground up.)

You can't build in the capacity without designing for it - this isn't something you can just slap on. If you tried, you'd almost certainly simply fry the board.



The most likely reason that it failed is that there are flaws in any manufacturing process, and when you have a device performing at the level an iPhone (or high-end Android device) is expected to you're going to be pushing hard physical limits and maximizing the chance those flaws will pop up.

[Radar]

I'm disappointed that an expensive phone can simply wear out in just five years - heck, the screen on my cheap Android phone from around 2015 is still fine, though its battery life is shot - but it is what it is.

They are targeted for people who change their phones way more often, so getting some failures after five years is not a problem for the manufacturer.

My personal opinion on highly sought out trademarks (be it high-tech stuff or cloths) is that they are just labels you pay extra for. There is no guarantee of quality.

[Trafalgar]

OK, I finally found out it's an iPhone XR, which came out in 2018 and does indeed advertise wireless chargability as a feature. (Though even so, I'm not confident that means it's a fully tested feature. "Supporting" wireless charging is not quite the same as designing for it from the ground up.)

But thank you for your opinion. I'm disappointed that an expensive phone can simply wear out in just five years - heck, the screen on my cheap Android phone from around 2015 is still fine, though its battery life is shot - but it is what it is.

Five or six years is pretty good for a smartphone. I remember reading somewhere that the average life of a smartphone is only 2 or 3 years. Understand that the profitability of the cell phone industry (and yes this includes apple) depends on people going out and buying new phones every few years.

And they are much harder to repair than laptops so good luck if you want to swap the screen or replace the battery on your own.

[veti]

Five or six years is pretty good for a smartphone. I remember reading somewhere that the average life of a smartphone is only 2 or 3 years. Understand that the profitability of the cell phone industry (and yes this includes apple) depends on people going out and buying new phones every few years.

And they are much harder to repair than laptops so good luck if you want to swap the screen or replace the battery on your own.

Changing screens is quite a common operation, there are like half a dozen repair shops within a five mile radius of me that will do that quite happily. Batteries, less so (probably because they're harder to damage).

The industry's profitability? Not my problem. I'm happy to pay a fair price for a decent phone, but having bought it I will keep using it for as long as I can extract any sort of value from it. Anything else would be borderline-criminally wasteful. Even my nine-year-old Android, the one with the forty-minute battery life, is still in use as a backup device.

Annoyingly, the old iPhone still has an amazing battery life. It's a full week now since it went dark, it hasn't been charged at all in that time, and yet its blasted alarms still keep going off...

[Trafalgar]

Changing screens is quite a common operation, there are like half a dozen repair shops within a five mile radius of me that will do that quite happily. Batteries, less so (probably because they're harder to damage).

But for how much? $150 or $200? Compare that with the cost of a new phone, especially with the bonus of signing a new contract with a provider.

[Osuniev]

Anything else would be borderline-criminally wasteful. Even my nine-year-old Android, the one with the forty-minute battery life, is still in use as a backup device.

One strong benefit of Android over Iphone is that you can, on most device, buy a battery online for a very cheap cost, open your phone and change the battery. Apple doesn't let you do that, the battery is soldiered on, when it's dead your phone is dead.

[Gnoman]

The majority of Android devices haven't had removable batteries for most of a decade at this point. A soldered-in battery allows for a thinner device, which people value for some reason.

[Trafalgar]

One strong benefit of Android over Iphone is that you can, on most device, buy a battery online for a very cheap cost, open your phone and change the battery. Apple doesn't let you do that, the battery is soldiered on, when it's dead your phone is dead.

The real benefit is Android is just an OS with a multitude of phone manufacturers. Some manufacturers prioritize repairability so have a replaceable battery as a feature. Some manufacturer prioritize slimness or water resistance which is harder to do with a replaceable battery.

[Chronos]

I do know for sure that cheap, shoddy wired phone chargers absolutely can and will damage a phone. Some of the worst ones have a pretty decent chance of damaging you, too.

It's not even hard to come up with a mechanism by which a cheap wireless charger could damage a phone: Just induce a voltage that's too high. I'd expect that to first show up as battery problems, but really, a voltage that's too high somewhere could plausibly damage pretty much anything.

[Rynjin]

While Google has definitely undergone "en****tification", the results in this case are reasonable. The only thing that wireless chargers could conceivably damage in a phone is the thing they are charging. i.e. the battery. It's like if you Googled "is jumpstarting my car bad for it?"; the results are gonna autofill "battery" on that because that would be the thing being damaged.

iPhones are designed with planned obsolescence in mind. Their breaking down is not unusual, it's what they're made to do. Frankly getting 5-6 years out of it is way at the upper end of the bell curve for the phone's lifespan.

[veti]

While Google has definitely undergone "en****tification", the results in this case are reasonable. The only thing that wireless chargers could conceivably damage in a phone is the thing they are charging. i.e. the battery.

Well, that's just not true. Most of the comments above are from reasonable people who have no difficulty conceiving the process damaging things other than the battery. I don't know anyone's level of expertise, but I'm not a complete ignoramus, I have a bachelors in engineering, and I can easily see how it might happen.

Which isn't to say that it could really happen. The answer to that would depend on facts and rules of design and testing that I don't know about. Which is why I asked, in case anyone does know.

[gbaji]

The real benefit is Android is just an OS with a multitude of phone manufacturers. Some manufacturers prioritize repairability so have a replaceable battery as a feature. Some manufacturer prioritize slimness or water resistance which is harder to do with a replaceable battery.

I think the last two Android phones I had did not have replaceable batteries. I'd assume you are correct that this is entirely about the manufacturer and model, and what they're going for. If I were to guess, the higher end phones are probably less likely to have replaceable batters. Probably for two main reaons:

1. The expected lifespan of the battery exceeds the likely useable lifespan of the phone. This is presuambly more likely to happen with higher end phones, both because the quality of the components are better *and* the customer is more likely to be inclined to replace the phone when newer/faster/better/sleeker/<insert some market dodad here> is availble.

2. They figure if you're already willing to pay top dollar for a phone, you probably fall into category 1b above, so... get those customers who can afford your top tier phones to buy new ones every few years, right? I mean, they're in business to make money, afterall.

I'll also make a side note that manufacturers also tend towards non-replaceable batteries because there may be regulatory pressures on them to do so. Lots of folks will toss a battery in the trash (which you are not supposed to do with Li-Ion batteries), while they might not toss a phone. They really want you to trade in or recycle your old phone for this (and other) reasons. So that can also account for some of that.


As a broad rule, I'd say that no, wireless charging is not going to harm your phone or your battery. Not any more than wired charging will. At the end of the day, if the internal wiring is properly directing the power to the battery and not spilling it off into other components, it's going to do that either way (or equally likely to fail with one charging method as another, or both, or neither).

That's not to say that some internal component hasn't gone bad, your getting a short across somewhere and this is manifesting as "my display breaks if I use wireless charging" (again though, it's entirely possible the same failure would occur if you were just using wired charging too). But that's a failure of some internal component and not a feature of wiireless charging in general. And hey. Whatever is causing the display to fail could be completely unrelated to the charging system at all.

Can also be that the first display failed due to age, and the second was just randomly defective, or installed incorrectly, or any of a number of possibilities. There's just way too many possible things that could have failed to point the finger at any one thing.

[Gnoman]

I think the last two Android phones I had did not have replaceable batteries. I'd assume you are correct that this is entirely about the manufacturer and model, and what they're going for. If I were to guess, the higher end phones are probably less likely to have replaceable batters. Probably for two main reaons:

1. The expected lifespan of the battery exceeds the likely useable lifespan of the phone. This is presuambly more likely to happen with higher end phones, both because the quality of the components are better *and* the customer is more likely to be inclined to replace the phone when newer/faster/better/sleeker/<insert some market dodad here> is availble.

2. They figure if you're already willing to pay top dollar for a phone, you probably fall into category 1b above, so... get those customers who can afford your top tier phones to buy new ones every few years, right? I mean, they're in business to make money, afterall.

I'll also make a side note that manufacturers also tend towards non-replaceable batteries because there may be regulatory pressures on them to do so. Lots of folks will toss a battery in the trash (which you are not supposed to do with Li-Ion batteries), while they might not toss a phone. They really want you to trade in or recycle your old phone for this (and other) reasons. So that can also account for some of that.

Manufacturers have been ditching user-replaceable batteries because it interferes with very marketable features. Providing a way to access the battery (which is typically quite large and thus requires a large access) makes it much harder to waterproof the phone. A waterproof phone is something the market highly values. Packaging the battery in a way that it can be easily swapped by a layman instead of requiring a trained technician with soldering gear requires you to make it in a very defined rigid shape instead of maximizing capacity while minimizing volume. This means that a replaceable battery creates a thicker phone, and usually a shorter battery life. Thin phones with long battery time are highly valued by the market. It is as simple as that.

If anything, regulators are moving toward prohibiting batteries that aren't easy to replace, not requiring them.