|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MagSafe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|It is requested that an image or photograph of MagSafe 2 connector for comparison with existing MagSafe 1 photos be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Please see talk:MagSafe (laptop power connector) for older discussions relating to this article and its contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Grisham (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Article title / primary topics / disambiguation pageEdit
Please see the discussion at the Talk page for MagSafe (smartphone charging and accessory interface) (and leave this forwarding link here indefinitely).
MagSafe 3 data?Edit
Do we think that the MagSafe 3 connector is power-only, no data? So a dock could either only deliver 100W over USB-C, or would have to have two connectors, one for data (USB-C) and one for power (MagSafe 3) if it wanted to quick-charge? Or does the MagSafe 3 connector do full Thunderbolt data? Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I came here to ask that question. I'm struck by the thought that the 2021 Pro models have three USB ports, rather than two or four. That and charging from any USB port lends credence to the theory that the Magsafe port is really a repurposed USB-C port with a different physical design and a cutdown number of pins. It would be interesting to know what signalling supports the integral charging LED - USB-C or the old method. And they're charging extra for Magsafe cables and not supplying them in the box? really? Well, if USB-C is mandated for charging by some countries...
My guess is that if it is USB-C sans pins (USB-C has 24) there won't be much left in the way of data capabilities. And that buying a Magsafe cable to free up a real USB port makes sense.
Cutdown USB-C for power with six or eight pins is not new; see https://www.cuidevices.com/blog/an-introduction-to-power-only-usb-type-c-connectors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Minor photo clarity nitEdit
while I can believe that the photo shows a first generation MagSafe socket in use, you can't see the socket -- and the lead, with its right angle so it goes to the back, is actually a second generation lead. The first generation lead, as used in the plastic-cased Macbooks, would be the little white plastic box with LED on, with the white power lead coming out at right angles to the laptop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Move discussion in progressEdit
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MagSafe Attach which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the small size of the two separate articles, and the fact that they're named the same by Apple, it makes far more sense to cover their shared history in one page, then break down the details on each in their own section. At the most basic level they both describe a way to charge an electronic device, and they have a shared method of making said charging easier (using strategically placed magnets to ease the connection process). The laptop variant uses magnets to help keep the physical pin connection, where the phone variant uses it to help align Qi wireless charging (and also supports attachable accessories that augment the phone experience). It's unnecessary for them to be in separate articles given all the similarities and the equal branding/name. For existing examples of articles covering similar but different technologies: Floppy disk (where multiple different, incompatible, versions of similar technology are covered and compared in one article), IEC 60320 (where various different and incompatible plugs/sockets are covered and compared in one article).
- Support as proposer. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Shivertimbers433, 17jiangz1, Nsaintarnaud, CactiStaccingCrane, TheOfficialThanos, Abobeck11, Captain Calm, Jimthing, Ibrahim774, BrownHairedGirl, Cody Cooper, Jacob Poon, PolarManne, Max Naylor, Dennis Bratland, Wilhelmp, Kevin chen2003, Tiz.io, Jimw338, and RFST: pinging major contributors of both articles (based on articleinfo for MagSafe and articleinfo for MagSafe Attach). If possible, it'd be nice if y'all could share an opinion at Talk:MagSafe Attach in the requested move discussion there. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merging. They have magnets and they send power and that's about where the similarities end. While they share the same marketing name, I think the two products are too dissimilar in form and function to warrant being one article. Mac MagSafe is an AC-current laptop power connector sold solely by Apple, while iPhone MagSafe is billed as an NFC/Qi-based ecosystem of chargers, mounts and peripheral devices (not solely charging as OP states) and is licensed to numerous vendors. Apple has reused names before, I don't think we should shove Apple Studio Display and Apple Studio Display (1998–2004) together, or Apple TV and Apple TV app together. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
They have magnets and they send power and that's about where the similarities end.That's literally what they both do...
not solely charging as OP statesyou must have missed where I said this:
and also supports attachable accessories that augment the phone experience.
Apple has reused names before, I don't think we should shove Apple Studio Display and Apple Studio Display (1998–2004) together, or Apple TV and Apple TV app together.Those are some lovely straw man arguments. Neither of those are being proposed here, for the former because only the current product is in production/use, for the latter because they are almost completely unrelated in what they do (no similarities whatsoever). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Oppose - They are two different things for two different purposes, for two different devices with two different purposes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)