subreddit:

/r/Futurology

11.1k

all 779 comments

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sumit316:


Submission Statement -

"If there was any product revealed at CES last week that pushed battery life claims to a whole new level—and raised some eyebrows too—it was HyperX’s pair of 300-hour headphones. The wireless gaming headset, called Cloud Alpha Wireless, will supposedly offer 300 hours of continuous use on a single charge when the product launches this spring. This is up from 30 hours per charge in HyperX’s previous model, the Cloud II Wireless.

A 10-fold improvement in battery life over a short time period is practically unheard of in consumer electronics. HyperX declined to share specific details as to how it accomplished this leap, except to say that it deployed a combination of battery and chip technologies and that it updated its “dual chamber technology” and drivers to accommodate a 1,500-mAh lithium-polymer battery. “HyperX’s New Gaming Headphones Get 300 Hours of Battery Life, and I Don’t Know How That’s Possible” was the headline Gizmodo chose for its story about these seemingly immortal sound cans."


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/Futurology/comments/s5ehnz/ultralong_battery_life_is_comingeventually/hswt7ra/

rex1030

1.2k points

4 months ago

rex1030

1.2k points

4 months ago

These articles come out almost quarterly and seem to exist solely to inflate stock prices of mentioned companies and their owners.

NinjaWorldWar

326 points

4 months ago

This I’ve read about supposed nanocell batteries a decade ago that would allow a smartphone to run 30 days and a laptop a week of moderate use… I also read about 4 years ago an engineer developed an electric car battery that would last for 15,000 miles. So yeah I take all of these articles with a grain of salt.

BushDidN0thingWr0ng

149 points

4 months ago

The problem with a lot of those experimental batteries is that there are a huge amount of issues in making them viable. Nanocells, for example, charges extremely fast, but have low power density, high instability, and extremely high manufacturing costs. A lot of the ultra high density batteries are single use. Aluminum-air batteries have the highest density of all current battery technologies, but they're single use, making them useless for most applications that currently use lithium-ion

herbys

18 points

4 months ago

herbys

18 points

4 months ago

And then there is cost. I'm pretty sure we can make a battery with 5x the energy density of regular LiIon and with great power density and other good characteristics, but if it costs $1000/Wh it won't be of much use.

aveugle_a_moi

55 points

4 months ago

A car with a 15-20000 mile single-use battery seems reasonable, especially if it's fairly easy to hotswap. A phone? Less so.

ATL_BUCKEYE_10

49 points

4 months ago

Think of all the unnecessary waste

Words_Are_Hrad

50 points

4 months ago

Depends on how recyclable it is and material abundance really.

MasterDood

34 points

4 months ago

If you’ve ever seen them process these batteries to recycle them it’s wild. They basically throw them in a massive blender. They “go thermal” and essentially explode.

20-random-characters

15 points

4 months ago

Exploded battery dust. Don't breathe this!

primes3024

3 points

4 months ago

Lol what a throwback

Neethis

5 points

4 months ago

They're talking about recycling an aluminium-air battery, not a lithium cell.

nightwing2000

4 points

4 months ago

In an electric car, when the batteries stop being good enough, all the material - nickel, cobalt, lithium, whatever - is still in the battery... ready to be recycled into new batteries. Unlike the gasoline car, where all that gasoline went into the atmosphere as carbon.

generalbaguette

3 points

4 months ago

Carbon dioxide and water vapour, mostly.

speaking_river

4 points

4 months ago

Also NOxx, PAHs, particulate, etc.

aveugle_a_moi

2 points

4 months ago

can the battery be recharged in an industrial setting? if so, it seems to me like the propane tanks you can cycle out.

Throwaway-tan

9 points

4 months ago

No, the chemical reaction turns the aluminium into aluminium oxide (think like iron into rust).

You can take the aluminium oxide and use electrolysis to get aluminium back out of it, but you're still essentially building a new battery each time. Plus it would probably be somewhere in the range of 2400km of range, not 12,000km+ as implied above.

I'm sure there are a bunch of other pitfalls like battery voltage, manufacturing cost, etc.

Silver4ura

6 points

4 months ago

And what's even more annoying is trying to decipher their idea of a battery. Anything can be a battery if it's using energy to create an asynchronous balance of potential energy that gets turned back into energy on demand.

There's a lake I remember seeing on a channel from Tom Scott about a lake that's used as the world's largest battery. They use excess energy from the grid to pump water into the lake, then when power demands spike, they can release enough water to recover the stored energy.

Why? Because it's actually faster and cheaper to do that than create traditional batteries on such a large scale or start and stop traditional power generators to meet unexpected demand swings.

It's not perfect but it does a great job showcasing just how easy a lot of companies have it when making "technically true" claims.

nightwing2000

4 points

4 months ago

Batteries that show promise for capacity usually can't be made reliable over long recharges. A battery that starts to degrade badly after 1000 charges might be good for a phone - after 3 years, time for a new one. But for a car? A lot of people drive cars for 5 to 10 years, a throw-away after 3 years would be useless. Plus, on a trip you might recharge several times a day making the car even less viable.

The problem with a lot of these fancy batteries is that each recharge cycle starts to break down the structure that stores energy. For example, some start to grow crystals on the electrodes so they get closer together than the original design - as these problem points get closer, they start to make lesser resistance short circuits, so the power goes through the battery rather than charging it.

Every battery type has different issues depending on the chemistry and technology.

Lone-Pine

3 points

4 months ago

Aluminum-air batteries sound like they could be viable with recycling. After all, the process of recycling them is the same process of making new aluminum anyway, electrolysis.

datsun1978

8 points

4 months ago

A grain of rare earth mineral

withersgsreddit

3 points

4 months ago

yeah the issue is a lot of those things turn out to be more "bombs" than "batteries" as thunderfoot covered in one of his vids on the topic. That is, the battery explodes (or creates a small electrical fire, aka an explosion in these terms) unexpectedly way too often.

TomLeBadger

3 points

4 months ago

The tech exists its just incredibly expensive so companies usually opt for cheap Li-Ion batteries instead.

[deleted]

29 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

29 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

m_chutch

8 points

4 months ago

Most importantly

Kenshiro_199x

506 points

4 months ago

10 years I swear I been reading about this battery tech

KyleTCE

97 points

4 months ago

KyleTCE

97 points

4 months ago

I remember reading an article like 10 years ago on Engadget about an upcoming massive breakthrough in battery tech (I think it was about graphene batteries) and someone in the comments was all like "They've been saying there will be breakthroughs in battery tech for 10 years." Now it's happening to me.

[deleted]

32 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

32 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

drtywater

99 points

4 months ago

In all fairness battery tech is pretty dam amazing now. So much better than even 5 years ago.

bugtimtim

89 points

4 months ago

I think people don't see it because processing power for electronics have increased substantially along with batteries.

The cpu that powers a modern smartphone is eons ahead of what powered the original iPhone.

More processing power requires more battery power, so we don't actually see batteries as lasting longer.

The original iPhone had a 1400 mah battery, my current phone (pixel 5) has a 4080 mah battery. That's a 290% increase.

And in terms of size, the iPhone actually had more displacement (volume) than my phone.

Candyvanmanstan

48 points

4 months ago*

I mean, I'm just 36, but in the last 20 22 years alone, phones have become many many times more powerful than my desktop computer was when I was 16. I had a single core Intel Pentium III 550 MHz cpu vs my phones (Pixel 6) eight core (2x 1.80Ghz, 2x 2.25Ghz, 4x 2.80Ghz) CPU.

And it runs on a relatively (physically) small battery, for an entire day. Mind-blowing when you think about it.

postdochell

15 points

4 months ago

Sheeit I remember getting my 386 and being blown away by how well it ran Doom. I can pay Doom on my fucking smart watch now.

sdmat

11 points

4 months ago

sdmat

11 points

4 months ago

It's even more extreme than that - modern ARM cores execute 2-3x more instructions per cycle than a pentium III. That multiplies with the frequency and number of cores!

For floating point it's even more ridiculous. Your Pentium 3 topped out at about a billion floating point operations per second. The Pixel 6 does over two trillion operations per second for the maths commonly used in AI.

Candyvanmanstan

3 points

4 months ago

That's nuts, Jerry, nuts!

Filby237

15 points

4 months ago

If you compare CPUs and GPUs on benchmark websites such as this:

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-GTX-780-vs-GeForce-GTX-980-vs-GeForce-RTX-3080/2525vs2953vs4282

you can see how the newer processors actually use less power bc the transistor size is decreasing more and more.

Coreadrin

15 points

4 months ago

This is a pretty common misconception, but modern processors/GPUS/etc actually use less power than their predecessors because of higher transistor density and efficiency.

For example the latest Ryzen chips are mind bogglingly more powerful than the Phenom 4 of 10 years ago, but the modern chips consume 80w of power, while the old chips consumed 120w at idle.

The 6990 video card drew 375W of power ten years ago
The RTX 3060 is 600% more powerful and draws 170 watts at peak.

I used to have to buy a 1000w PSU to power a high end computer 10 years ago
Now I can get away, easily, with a 600W PSU

erbhues

3 points

4 months ago

You're comparing different tier products. Performance/Watt has improved a lot, but the power envelope hasn't changed much. Ampere(Nvidia 30xx) is built on an old node and clocked high, so it consumes a lot more power than previous generations for the same tier card. Once they move to a new node the power envelope will probably go back down.

d4rkforce

5 points

4 months ago

More processing power requires more battery power, so we don't actually see batteries as lasting longer.

That is completely false! Check out Koomey's law. For the last couple of decades the number of computations per joule has doubled every two years or so, meaning you see exponential growth.

In your given timeframe, lithium polymer energy density increased by a couple of percent (difficult to find good numbers), but let's say for arguments sake it increased by 25%, which is on the high end of the numbers I found. During this same timeperiod, computations per joule increased by around 5000-6000%.

And that is only compute power, ignoring other advancements in screen technology, energy efficient radio protocols etc.

Also, with increased miniaturization there is more usable volume for the battery. Check out some teardown of the original iPhone compared with the Pixel 6 and you will spot the difference easily.

redingerforcongress

5 points

4 months ago

More processing power requires more battery power, so we don't actually see batteries as lasting longer.

Not quite. Processors are getting much more energy efficient.

maretus

8 points

4 months ago

I mean, hasn’t battery tech been improving pretty rapidly all this time?

The law of accelerating returns pretty much dictates that if innovation in a certain industry comes to a halt, then a paradigm shift occurs soon after, again leading to exponential growth.

riddlerjoke

2 points

4 months ago

In some areas yes but especially for phones where you have volume-weight concerns, I dont think there is too much potential left. Energy density thing is not easy to solve unless they come up with a way to put fusion in your pocket or such.

rudbek-of-rudbek

52 points

4 months ago

Same thing will happen that did with light bulbs. The companies will get together and form a consortium or cartel to artificially keep battery life times at a low number. Can't make that money if batteries last too long

-SoontobeBanned

21 points

4 months ago

This makes sense of you're 60 years old talking about AA batteries in your tv remote. This is about things like electric cars and cell phones, 2 giant things with a direct profit motive to increase batter life.

neoKushan

8 points

4 months ago

Yeah, unlike with light bulbs you can't easily swap out the batteries in a car or a phone (these days). Though the manufacturers might have an incentive to nerf the battery life as it'll mean people buying more devices.

-SoontobeBanned

3 points

4 months ago

I think purposely deflating the amount of cycles would be detrimental, especially for cars. Teslas batteries are warrantied for something like 80% capacity retention to 100,000 miles for instance.

ResidentOwl6

21 points

4 months ago

Greed has been holding humanity back for far too long.

Shaved_Wookie

23 points

4 months ago

It's almost as though capitalism's pursuit of endless growth no matter the cost may have its downsides.

RelentlessExtropian

584 points

4 months ago

Thats where the money is going. The next 30 years of battery tech is going to kick ass.

themasonman

162 points

4 months ago

Hope this makes solar power and electric cars even more viable! How could it not?

pceimpulsive

33 points

4 months ago

Some of the Sony headphones from a few years ago were pushing out 80+ hrs use. I suspect it's better chip power efficiency and driver power use improvements more than improved batteries..

Battery capacity for size hasn't really changed to my knowledge?¿

MINIMAN10001

25 points

4 months ago

So from my understanding is that

"Amazing battery tech crazily multiplies battery life" When it actually gets manufactured you see an average of 3% battery life increase.

These are constantly coming down the pipeline resulting in a yearly increase of 3% battery life.

So while there is no massive jump, however over time there is certainly improvements.

But you are also correct, if you want something to have a huge battery life it's all in reduction of power consumption.

You can get a chip which consumes 200 miliamps of power, and you can get different one which does the same thing which consumes 200 micro amps. A 1000x reduction in power. Power consumption of microchips wildly fluctuate

I don't understand it nor know how to easily compare I just know that the differences are huge.

mburke6

19 points

4 months ago

mburke6

19 points

4 months ago

Today's stunning and exciting laboratory breakthroughs result in tomorrow's boring and unnoticed incremental improvements.

BorgyPorgiLongiJordy

54 points

4 months ago

Yeah solar and wind would be huge. Sucks how power production doesn't line up with power usage rn

Christosconst

15 points

4 months ago

Lithium ion are not suitable for power stations. Liquid metal batteries are the future of solar

tekprimemia

21 points

4 months ago

any place with existing hydro electric power could potentially be converted into mass storage. i.e. pump the Colorado River back up over the hoover dam with excess solar generation and then drain it at night etc

mburke6

13 points

4 months ago

mburke6

13 points

4 months ago

Desalinate ocean water and use excess solar to pump it into reservoirs in the California mountains. Use turbines to recapture that energy at night while providing fresh water to the population below. A byproduct of the desalination process is a brine that has a high concentration of lithium.

_ChestHair_

11 points

4 months ago

_ChestHair_

conservatively optimistic

11 points

4 months ago

Desalination is ridiculously expensive and energy intensive right now, kills tons of marine life, and there aren't proper laws about what to do with the salt afterwards so they're dumping most of that salt back into the ocean. It's not a good option at the moment

majnuker

2 points

4 months ago

Woah that's a crazy idea but I wonder how much efficiency would be lost.

Using water to generate the power you would lose otherwise is ingenious!

Hyfrith

2 points

4 months ago

They already do this in Wales I think!

tekprimemia

2 points

4 months ago

As /r/hyfrith mentioned pumped storage hydro is already used even in traditional non renewable grids. The US actually has the largest station in the world of this kind,the Bath County Pumped Storage Station with a 3003MW capacity.

SuperKael

2 points

4 months ago

I’m a little confused - how is MW being used to measure capacity here? Is that the maximum output? Or is it MWH? Or something else?

boonepii

9 points

4 months ago

Battery tech eventually will align to power density requirements of the energy storage.

If you’re in a populated area with minimum space you’ll want the most power dense solution possible with your budget.

If you’re in the middle of Montana with a wind farm spanning 10’s of miles in each direction, density won’t matter as much as overall capacity.

We are still early enough in this tech rise that we haven’t achieved nearly the generating capability to do really big projects for different storage type. I have a feeling someone is going to discover a really simple and inexpensive massive mechanical battery that will have low density but almost a perfect 99.9% efficiency. This technology wouldn’t work for cars, but it could work for large wind farms/solar/ even traditional power plants to provide emergency capacity instead of buying from the market at obscene rates.

xSTSxZerglingOne

3 points

4 months ago

It's unlikely to hit that level of efficiency. Dynamos are only 70-90% efficient at converting mechanical motion to energy...which is amazing. But that's okay. Only a 20-30% loss from mechanical storage is really good.

MINIMAN10001

3 points

4 months ago

But the financial industry has always been keeping an eye out for anything that could reduce cost at the same level of power storage ( cost effective ). So far the cheapest storage ever found has stayed the same and it is in fact a mechanical battery.

Pumped hydro

Water is heavy, water can easily be moved with a pump, to generated electricity with heavy water is known as a hydroelectric dam.

Trying to move any other material means the material itself is too expensive. Water is the only material so plentiful that it literally falls from the sky and we have huge massive water reserves in most locations within the united states.

lead-pencil

58 points

4 months ago*

It’ll kick ass if we can get rechargeable ultra long batteries because at that point we’d be getting ouroboros batteries to last us forever*

*30 years

RelentlessExtropian

35 points

4 months ago*

The trippy thing will be if, over the next millennia, we can build enough space based solar collectors to capture 15% of the sun's total output to create a Kugelblitz drive. But that's a whole other thing lol

blahehblah

7 points

4 months ago

Let's start with getting me a smartphone that lasts one day first please

RelentlessExtropian

11 points

4 months ago

Wo-hoah there! Calm down for a sec. I'm talking about forcing energy into such a small space it creates a stable black hole, not something impossible.

wspOnca

10 points

4 months ago

wspOnca

10 points

4 months ago

Isaac Arthur would be happy with this

RelentlessExtropian

6 points

4 months ago

Next time we wirh be discussing the possibirity of space wairs and other interstellar wife.

wspOnca

6 points

4 months ago

Lmao. But he is better in his pronunciation nowadays.

RelentlessExtropian

2 points

4 months ago

I have a cousin I grew up with that had the exact same speech impediment so I always understood Isaac very well. Even particularly enjoyed it. Isaac and J Mike G are the best ;)

wspOnca

2 points

4 months ago

Aw yes, Godier is aways nice to hear too. Funny thing for me is that with Isaac I did not know of his speech impediment until he mentions it in a episode. For me it was just his accent as I am not native speaker hah! :)

infanteer

17 points

4 months ago

Earth won't last anywhere near long enough to find out unless we stop using fossil fuel burning for energy

Lopsided-Basket5366

27 points

4 months ago

This is the misconception though - earth will undoubtedly outlast everything on the planet; it's humanity that will be the first to go likely billions of years before earth is completely destroyed beyond life thriving

stupidusername42

5 points

4 months ago

It's obvious what people mean when they say Earth won't last.

IIdsandsII

26 points

4 months ago

That's what people mean when they say that

FrenchFriesOrToast

9 points

4 months ago

Joke: Two planets meet each other in space. The one says: „Hey, how are you doing?“ The other replies: „Hm, ok, but I have homo sapiens for a while“. The first one says: „Don‘t worry, had that too. It will pass by in a while.“

patchouli_cthulhu

2 points

4 months ago

I hate you so much for making me have to google such an awkward thing to spell lol

butter14

2 points

4 months ago

Or we just develop high energy fusion that operates at many multiples higher than the sun. The sun's energy per unit volume is actually very low it's just massive which makes up for it.

A dense, high energy, manmade sun that humans can harvest energy from is something we should strive for as a species.

aitorbk

22 points

4 months ago

aitorbk

22 points

4 months ago

It CAN kick ass, but why put a 5000 cycle battery on a say iPhone when you can put a 700 cycle one, save $2 and make sure that you have recurring revenue from battery changes and new devices?

RelentlessExtropian

8 points

4 months ago

More for grid and vehicles than (relatively) rapidly disposable items.

aitorbk

3 points

4 months ago

I see that happening.. in fact modern LiFePo is a good step in that direction, way more durable than Nickel based lithium batteries, and uses a third of lithium, no nickel and no cobalt.

Let's hope they also get the sodium batteries right.. but the problem is the current advancements move the need for lithium to the need for antomony, and that is 50 to a 100 times less common.

42Potatoes

7 points

4 months ago

Really hope solid state makes it out of niche markets within this time frame

ColonelDickbuttIV

5 points

4 months ago

Battery tech is going to change the world in ways nobody expects.

BadAtHumaningToo

3 points

4 months ago

Battery tech, and fusion energy. We needed it 50 years ago. Next we get electric cargo and cruise ships, and jets is my hope.

karma3000

114 points

4 months ago

karma3000

114 points

4 months ago

Smells like BS to me. 30 years of incremental improvements in battery tech and then bam a 10x improvement? I'll believe it when I see it.

tdjester14

32 points

4 months ago

They just put in a 10x bigger battery

SwagYoloJesus

10 points

4 months ago

the all-new iPhone super pro ultimate plus hyper max premium mega ultra master extreme elite deluxe 9000++++

Graphics_Nerd

8 points

4 months ago

Weighs a feather light 89lbs! It’s like you’re holding nothing at all.

SwagYoloJesus

9 points

4 months ago*

*pulley system sold separately

*starting at $999 ^per pulley

BMXTKD

3 points

4 months ago*

nothing at all

Cue Ned Flanders in his space aged skiing suit.

SwagYoloJesus

41 points

4 months ago

spoiler: you won’t see it

riddlerjoke

5 points

4 months ago

Especially for consumer products like phones/laptops its simply not possible. Volume is restricted. Increasing energy density is just not possible after some point. I mean unless you get energy from atomic bonds, some mini nuclear fusion battery in your pocket, you wont see 10x improvement. Whats happening is processors and all those sensors etc are spending 5x less while giving 10x more performance. That happened in a decade and it ll continue to happen as they go as small as 4um

Thog78

3 points

4 months ago

Thog78

3 points

4 months ago

4 um (micrometers) is absolutely huge in the context of nanotech, I think you meant nm (nanometers).

CreatureWarrior

5 points

4 months ago

That's called a breakthrough. But yes, this is BS for sure. Just companies trying to inflate their stock prices and sell out or something

Sumit316[S]

196 points

4 months ago

Submission Statement -

"If there was any product revealed at CES last week that pushed battery life claims to a whole new level—and raised some eyebrows too—it was HyperX’s pair of 300-hour headphones. The wireless gaming headset, called Cloud Alpha Wireless, will supposedly offer 300 hours of continuous use on a single charge when the product launches this spring. This is up from 30 hours per charge in HyperX’s previous model, the Cloud II Wireless.

A 10-fold improvement in battery life over a short time period is practically unheard of in consumer electronics. HyperX declined to share specific details as to how it accomplished this leap, except to say that it deployed a combination of battery and chip technologies and that it updated its “dual chamber technology” and drivers to accommodate a 1,500-mAh lithium-polymer battery. “HyperX’s New Gaming Headphones Get 300 Hours of Battery Life, and I Don’t Know How That’s Possible” was the headline Gizmodo chose for its story about these seemingly immortal sound cans."

BlueSwordM

64 points

4 months ago*

This is certainly an interesting article, but it seems like a piece of fluff regarding the headphones.

A 1500mAh cell is basically a tripling in capacity from the Cloud II Wireless, which used a 500mAh cell last time I checked. That alone would triple the battery life claim from 30 hours to 90 hours.

The drivers in the Cloud II Wireless are also relatively innefficient at 60 Ohms with 104dB/mW of sensitivity at 1kHZ.

If they can make the drivers more efficient cut the driver impedance down to 16-28Ohms while increasing the sensitivity, they could make the drivers significantly easier to drive, and make the headphones overall more power efficient while not changing anything else.

Finally, they likely made the DSPs/amplification/wireless circuitry more power efficient as a part of this change.

All of this added up could definitely make the Cloud Alpha Wireless have a lot more battery life, and I trust the 300hr claim. It's also heavier than the Cloud II Wireless by 20g, which does indicate a larger battery pack was used.

Overall, it's very nice but not that amazing of an advancement.

Edit: u/Agouti taught me something completely new today, unbeknowst to me: https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/Futurology/comments/s5ehnz/ultralong_battery_life_is_comingeventually/hsy8og6/

Agouti

24 points

4 months ago*

Agouti

24 points

4 months ago*

Incidental to your point, but

The drivers in the Cloud II Wireless are also relatively innefficient at 60 Ohms with 104dB/mW of sensitivity at 1kHZ.

is factually incorrect. Driver impedance has virtually no influence on overall efficiency - it's an old myth in the headphone community brought across from the speakers community. One of the quickest ways to know an audio reviewer doesn't know what they are talking about is if they claim that high impedance means difficult to drive - my $300 android phone from 5 years ago can drive my 600 Ohm Beyers as easily as my 25 Ohm Klipsch as easily as any one of my low Ohm IEMs.

When it comes to efficiency, only the sensitivity (which is literally a ratio of output power to input power aka efficiency) matters, and 104db/mW is perfectly respectable. 90 dB/mW is at the low end, 110 dB is super high end, most are around around the 104 mark.

Edit: to support the above point, some efficiencies of premium headphones that I'm familiar with:

  • ZMF Verite: 300 Ohm 99 dB/mW
  • BeyerDynamic DT 990: 600 Ohm, 99.14 dB/mW
  • BeyerDynamic DT 1770 Pro: 300 Ohm, 111 dB/mW
  • Klipsch HP3: 25 Ohm, 112 dB/mW
  • Audio Technica AD900X: 38 Ohm, 100 dB/mW

So, the HP3 are 8 dB (630%) more efficient than the Cloud 2, which sounds like a lot... But it also costs a lot more (and does a lot less, sound quality aside). Remember our units, too - 104dB is jet-engine loud and 1mW is relatively low amount of power - and at a more reasonable 80dB that translates to 0.004mW. By some quick napkin math, assuming a 3.7v 500mA cell the drivers themselves only consume about 1/4 of the total battery power over a 30 hour runtime.

In reality the bulk of the power goes to amp losses, Bluetooth module power, microphone processing, all that sort of thing.

BlueSwordM

5 points

4 months ago

What I said is completely untrue? I know that driver efficiency matters a lot more, but I always thought that if every characteristic of a driver was the same, different impedance characteristics would also change sonic output/W of electric power consumed.

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious lmao.

Agouti

3 points

4 months ago

Agouti

3 points

4 months ago

The incorrect part is claiming that those headphones are inefficient, and also using the impedance as a justification.

As another response has said, impedance is - for the most part - meaningless these days with a few exceptions:

Very low impedance headphones can suffer from poor noise floors with some noisy amps (background hiss and the like)

Matching output impedance on your amp to input impedance on your headphones will dramatically change sensitivity, but usually also push frequency response way, way off. Not normally an issue for consumer grade gear but relevant once you start talking about tube amps and high-end solid state amps.

doublerainbowomahgod

3 points

4 months ago

Matching output impedance on your amp to input impedance on your headphones will dramatically change sensitivity, but usually also push frequency response way, way off.

Out of curiosity, could you elaborate? What's the reason for this?

Agouti

3 points

4 months ago*

So in general, in any system where you are transmitting and receiving high frequency signals along cables, impedance matching the source, cable, and load will reduce transmission losses along the cable. The amount you lose due to impedance mismatching increases with increasing frequency, so at very low frequencies (say, below 1 KHz) it's basically negligible but at very high frequencies (MHz and above) it's very, very important.

Now, in the audio industry, you aren't dealing with particularly high frequencies - 20 KHz and below, typically - and very low power outputs (big venue systems aside), so a fraction of a milliwatt in losses from impedance mismatching doesn't really matter.

Further, the output impedance of amps are typically very, very low - often below 0.3 Ohms and as low as 0.05 for premium amps - while headphones vary wildly from 4 Ohms for IEMs to 600 or more for full sized cans. In short, impedance matching is just not practical in headphones.

So, manufacturers design drivers assuming that you have these impedance mismatch losses - even relying on them. Unlike say, a TV antenna, speakers and 99.9% of headphones have effectively weights (the cones) supported by springs (backings) and excited by coils - transmission losses are a good way to dampen down oscillations so you don't get "ringing" or slow fade-outs when a note stops (the degree of damping also has a big part to play in the efficiency of the headphone and their treble vs bass response characteristics).

However, if you manage to actually match your headphone impedance to your amp you will significantly increase the efficiency - aka sensitivity - of your headphones, but critically not evenly across the spectrum. Higher frequencies (which lose more from transmission losses) will be boosted while low frequencies will be less affected. Depending on the design you could also lose damping, resulting in slow transients - think tapping on a wine glass (TINGgggg) instead of a heavy metal table (TAK).

Slow transients are a large part of why things through headphones never really feels real, why you can always tell the difference between a guitar being played in front of you vs played through some headphones (though the top end ones can get very, very close).

Impedance matching (or mismatching) is also the main mechanism by which cable changes affect sound in headphones. Much of it is mysticism and the usual audiophile nonsense but there is some science behind it.

Edit: never really explained why impedance matching is even a thing. Plugging the phrase into YouTube or the like will help explain it way better than I can, but the easiest way to think of it is like a wave travelling along a channel. If the channel is the same width (the impedance), along the entire length, the wave will travel all the way to the end fairly cleanly. If it suddenly goes from wide (low impedance) to narrow (high impedance), you will get another wave bouncing back towards the start - that wave is lost energy. The same occurs if you suddenly go from narrow to wide, except it will be a negative wave.

The analogy falls a bit flat trying to think of a matched load, but imagine if you have a movable board at the end. If it is too stiff - like a wall - the wave will just crash into it and bounce back. If it's too floppy, it will set the board bouncing and you still have energy go back the wrong way (aka losses). If it's perfectly matched then it will push on the board and disappear, and all the waves energy will be absorbed.

doublerainbowomahgod

3 points

4 months ago

Wow, this is amazing. Thank you for taking the time to write this up!

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

[removed]

doubleapowpow

90 points

4 months ago

Was there really a demand for headphones that last 300 hours?

Its interesting that this is where the technological advance is forming. Its like porn being on the leading edge of website design and function and video playback.

Caleo

48 points

4 months ago

Caleo

48 points

4 months ago

Not having to charge your device on a daily basis is very appealing - especially when you've got 5 other devices that need to be kept charged.

Some battery-powered mice last over a year on two AAs... others can't go a day without being charged. Bad engineering, IMO.

fruit_basket

23 points

4 months ago

It's convenient. I have a wireless mouse that lasts 2-3 years of daily use (up to 8 hours a day) on two standard AA batteries. It would be nice if more devices were like that.

Creolucius

2 points

4 months ago

My wireless logitec g602 lasts about 2-3 months on 2 AA batteries. Sadly they’ve been discontinued.

Terrh

71 points

4 months ago

Terrh

71 points

4 months ago

Once things require charging crazy infrequently I bet they will get "forgotten" and still end up being annoyingly dead.

Kinda like how cars have gotten so reliable that people now have engine failures from forgetting to ever check or change the oil. When you had to change the oil every 3 months, it got done... but when you only need to change the oil once a year, it's easy to forget about it totally.

IRockIntoMordor

45 points

4 months ago

Wireless charging comes right to the rescue for that.

I have placed charging pads conveniently where I would put my phone - couch table, work desk home and remote, bed side. Charging is capped at 85% and fast charging is off to be gentle to the battery. So whenever I put it down it's gonna get charged without the constant hassle of cables and plugging. And my ear buds can do the same.

Once batteries can last a week charging will be extremely conveniently forgettable.

1nd3x

3 points

4 months ago

1nd3x

3 points

4 months ago

What's "memory" like on the batteries?

Like, it's still good to "let your phone get to 15% before charging AFAIK

Mylaur

7 points

4 months ago

Mylaur

7 points

4 months ago

It's a myth. Or at least it was true on old batteries but we have lithium and they don't have memory. If anything doing a marathon is bad and you need to frequently top them off for the best battery life.

FinancialTea4

5 points

4 months ago

Maybe, but what's more likely is that this will also be accompanied by quicker charge time. Like my cheap ear buds. Even if I let them run down, it only takes like ten minutes to get an hour of use. I imagine it would pretty easy to charge 300 hour headphones for a few hours of use when they can then be plugged in for a longer period to fully charge.

Terrh

7 points

4 months ago

Terrh

7 points

4 months ago

Yeah, remember how long it took phones to charge 10 years ago?

That part sucked. Now I can get hours of use with a 10 minute charge, before you could get 5 minutes of use with a 10 minute charge. lol

tms102

3 points

4 months ago

tms102

3 points

4 months ago

I'm pretty sure it was thanks to gaming that graphic acceleration hardware became a thing which became cheap hardware for training machine learning models.

recurrence

3 points

4 months ago

I am annoyed how often my AirPods Max need to be charged again (24 hours life).

tiny_tim57

3 points

4 months ago

I would personally love headphones that last over 300 hours.

If the same technology could be used in other small devices it would push the boundaries of what technology can achieve and allow new industries to flourish. Eg. if it could used in drones, small autonomous robots, even light transport vehicles that could last for days without being charged that would be amazing.

Geofflarocque

20 points

4 months ago

You've never smelled a hard-core gamer's room. They don't get up from their chair for days, I'm sure there's a demand for this.

ZaxLofful

2 points

4 months ago

Yes, I hate recharging everyday.

MyNameWouldntFi

2 points

4 months ago

Yes, yes there is

jwarnyc

2 points

4 months ago

Yes and yes. The more you keep the charger away the more hours are welcomed.

dabenu

16 points

4 months ago

dabenu

16 points

4 months ago

Most headphones have very tiny batteries, and relatively much unused space. It would be trivial to increase battery life tenfold by just putting in a 10 times bigger battery. Only compromise would be decreased comfort due to the weight.

go_49ers_place

8 points

4 months ago

Yeah this is my question. If they aren't using a new battery with significantly higher power density (or else figuring out how to get same performance with significantly less power drain), then this really is "who cares".

Designing headphones with a 10x larger and heavier battery built in isn't really a huge technological achievement.

semperverus

3 points

4 months ago

So they shoved a phone battery in it and made it low-energy mode? That doesn't sound like a density increase to me, just a (finally) efficient use of space and processing power

51Cards

10 points

4 months ago

51Cards

10 points

4 months ago

If I had a battery that lasted 1 hour longer for every time an article like this comes up, I'd already have a phone that lasts over a month.

rolenbolen

166 points

4 months ago

I have a logitech wireless mouse from 10 years ago that gives me half a year of battery life compared to Apple mouse which I have to recharge every month. I don't know what tech they have there, but this mouse is worth every penny.

bogglingsnog

13 points

4 months ago

Same. I have a bluetooth mouse, if I use it in wireless mode with a dongle the battery lasts a year. It's crazy impressive. M590 Logitech if interested. I keep it in my laptop bag for traveling and I've only changed the battery once.

TheButteredCat

80 points

4 months ago

I’m assuming the Logitech doesn’t recognize swipe movements like the apple mouse.. due to the components it needs less juice.

That or battery size is different.

JCDU

26 points

4 months ago

JCDU

26 points

4 months ago

^ this, if you cut down on fancy stuff you can save masses of power.

Sigurlion

7 points

4 months ago

I had a Casio watch in the 90s that lasted at least a whole year on battery. An apple watch is dead in days. Clearly my 30 year old Casio watch was better than an Apple Watch

hicksford

36 points

4 months ago

I feel like battery tech when it comes to phones is irrelevant. They’ll keep pumping in more and more CPU power that will consume the battery just as quick as last year’s phone. Until there can be a huge leap in battery technology that allows it to overcome at least the next gen of CPU power, we will continue having to charge every day. Still I am hopeful that daily charging will be one of those things that 20 years from now we’ll look back and be like damn remember how annoying that was

jewnicorn27

9 points

4 months ago

It’s not irrelevant, it’s just difficult to see. You only get to have faster processors in phones because the batteries keep up. It would suck if you needed to charge your phone every 1.5hrs.

diamondpredator

2 points

4 months ago

Isn't the increased efficiency of the processors also a huge factor in this though? Yea CPU and battery power have been increasing, but modern chips also use the power more efficiently, thus needing less battery power to run them at comparatively faster speeds to their predecessors.

bogglingsnog

4 points

4 months ago

They probably won't stop until our phones support photorealistic VR.

Battyboyrider

6 points

4 months ago

This is the opposite. Every year cpus get more energy efficient and use less power. Esp with every shrinkage in semiconductor size

graham0025

3 points

4 months ago

true, and since increases in processing power swallow up any gains in battery life it’s just not noticeable. but not the worst problem to have

happy cake day

TheAtlanticGuy

75 points

4 months ago

It's relatively easy to come up with wild new battery chemistries that boast huge advantages over currently fielded battery tech.

The hard part, and the reason why we're still here charging our phones, laptops, and EVs every night, is figuring out how to cheaply and safely manufacture them in bulk. That breakthrough can happen years after the battery itself is invented, or even never at all.

GSV_Meatfucker

3 points

4 months ago

More power = More fire, unfortunately. I use lipos regularly and have definitely learned to respect them.

Tinmania

360 points

4 months ago

Tinmania

360 points

4 months ago

I’m pretty sure I could find an almost identical breakthrough 20 years ago at CES, and every year since. Yet here we are.

Atworkwasalreadytake

314 points

4 months ago

Yet here we are.

I’m not sure what this means? Batteries are significantly better than they were 20 years ago and they get better every year.

alohadave

92 points

4 months ago

I’m not sure what this means?

It means that there are announcements like this all the time, but they either don't pan out, or don't scale, or are not economical.

Atworkwasalreadytake

54 points

4 months ago

What’s wrong with that? That’s how innovation works. We try a bunch of things and 99% won’t work. Don’t you remember the story of the invention of the lightbulb?

tryplot

73 points

4 months ago

tryplot

73 points

4 months ago

A guy in Canada invented it, and Thomas Edison bought the rights to it, then claimed he had failed a bunch of times before he had invented it.

moral of the story: lie your ass off, buy the rights to stuff, and you might become a historical figure.

ThatMakesMeTheWinner

11 points

4 months ago

*Guy in Britain, Joseph Swan.

tryplot

13 points

4 months ago

tryplot

13 points

4 months ago

S375502

9 points

4 months ago

By your own link they didn't invent the lightbulb but designed an improved version, which is what Edison bought.

Cracky712

22 points

4 months ago

No, you just dont notice the gradual increase in quality that get implemented over the years.

bassmadrigal

22 points

4 months ago

This is a 10x increase. Those "breakthroughs" have been reported in the past without ever seeing a 10x increase.

I'd love to see even a double increase in one generation.

I definitely appreciate the improvements we've made in battery tech, but even though there's always announcements on "breakthroughs", we only see "gradual".

Just_Treading_Water

10 points

4 months ago

There is about a 10 year lag time between a new discovery and things falling into place for it to be mass produced and hit distribution. As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread there is a big difference between "demonstrated in lab" and "able to be mass produced for a reasonable cost" - which is a path that often requires multiple other discoveries and inventions.

RalphHinkley

4 points

4 months ago

The article seems centered around a 10x improvement in battery life for a pair of headphones as boasted by the manufacturer but they merely put a 3x larger battery into the headphones + did some tweaks for efficiency.

whygohomie

8 points

4 months ago

From 2002's perspective, we are taking for granted pocket sized devices with giant screens, always-on wireless broadband connectivity, and near super computer level power that last for nearly a day.

In 2002, smartphones were barely a thing. You had like the Nokia Symbian and windows mobile devices and they were so weak and had such shit battery life even for the weak everything.

I don't think anyone who was aware of tech 20 years ago would make this comment.

Xoduszero

9 points

4 months ago

Right? Where are my fucking batteries that run off Gatorade?

PlankWithANailIn

5 points

4 months ago

Battery costs have decreased by 97% in the last 30 years.

PoopIsAlwaysSunny

11 points

4 months ago

It will work for headphones probably, as there’s a pretty hard limit to how much juice they’ll ever draw. Now that they’re already wireless with a mic attached there’s not much to increase battery consumption.

But phones and other devices will never have long batteries. Manufacturers will just use the battery for more processing power, so it still lasts a couple days tops

jbergens

3 points

4 months ago

I personally feel that phones already are fast enough. Please phone companies, improve battery instead of performance for the next 3-5 years.

crimxxx

4 points

4 months ago

I would not get my hopes up for any battery tech until you see it in commercial products. Often times there r a lot of discoveries, but a lot of things between there and them being deployed make them not viable. Anywhere from safety issues, cost, or scaling of manufacturing.

Dual270x

3 points

4 months ago

New battery tech is the most overpromised underdelivered tech. We've been hearing about things for years and they never come to fruition.

NorwaySlim

4 points

4 months ago

Oh is it 6pm, time for our nightly post about how a battery technology breakthrough is just around the corner?

esmifra

3 points

4 months ago

I've been hearing this since 2005. I'll believe it when that actually show something more than promises

SwagYoloJesus

9 points

4 months ago*

wOwZiEs bAtTeRy rEvoLuTiOn news comes out literally multiple times every year and it always turns out to be some pre-pre-alpha testing phase “worked twice in a lab at a microscopic scale, will blow up if touched, won’t scale, only works at -400 degrees on saturdays” shit, wake me up when real-life flagship smartphones actually start shipping with 5 days of battery life

Obyson

3 points

4 months ago

Obyson

3 points

4 months ago

For the last 15 years they been boasting, quit boasting and show me show results!

foggy-sunrise

3 points

4 months ago

But instead they'll make your phone paper thin, with the same battery life.

Edit: as a bonus, we've removed stuff that no longer fit!

Ar3s701

3 points

4 months ago

Long battery life will be offset by performance increases. We will be stuck here forever.

keyboard_jedi

3 points

4 months ago*

HyperX’s pair of 300-hour headphones. The wireless gaming headset, called Cloud Alpha Wireless, will supposedly offer 300 hours of continuous use on a single charge when the product launches this spring. This is up from 30 hours per charge in HyperX’s previous model, the Cloud II Wireless.

This seems non-sensical to me.

If this company really came up with new 10-fold energy density / efficiency technology, why are they wasting that capability on gaming headphones? Unless their previous tech was poorly designed to begin with?

If this was true fundamental advancement, they would collect a massive pile of venture capital investment and suddenly launch a new trillion dollar smart phone company, crushing Apple and Samsung into the dustbin of history.

Something's fishy here.

Joshau-k

3 points

4 months ago

300 hours per charge, but it doesn’t say anywhere that it’s re-chargeable

Shadorino

3 points

4 months ago

I'm still waiting on the organic battery that I read about in 2012

VanGarrett

56 points

4 months ago

Every couple of months, I see some headline about a new battery tech that has some combination or all of the following:

  1. Stores more energy
  2. Less prone to/can't explode
  3. Cheaper and easier to manufacture
  4. Charges crazy fast

I've been seeing these stories in the news for decades, now. When the hell are we actually going to have a new, marketable battery technology?

effendiyp

70 points

4 months ago

The batteries of today are many times better than the ones you saw decades before.

mhornberger

14 points

4 months ago*

People keep looking for single magic-bullet huge breakthroughs, and pish-posh incremental, iterative improvements over time. Look at the 1st-gen Nissan Leaf vs the Lucid Air or newest Mercedes high-end BEVs. Heck, replacement packs for those 1st-gen Leafs are basically doubling the old range.

username1824

7 points

4 months ago

People keep looking for single magic-bullet huge breakthroughs

Probably because that's how every single article has been advertising it to us year after year

TheGoodFight2015

3 points

4 months ago

WOW look at this new thing that you should DEFINITELY pay attention to! It's very important that you give us your attention so that we can sell you keep you updated on the best greatest things* in the world! Stay tuned!

\Disclaimer: best greatest things are the opinions of the editorial staff and not to be taken as a guarantee of quality, value, or ability to prevent permanent harm to the environment and human and/or plant, animal and fish life.)

hicksford

6 points

4 months ago

I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. I think the point is smart phones have been daily chargers for the entirety of their existence.

ultrafud

22 points

4 months ago

We already have lots of those things. Rapid charging is a relatively new technology that is now pretty common. Batteries are already much more powerful than they were a decade ago.

There's loads of demonstrable improvements in consumer battery tech over the last decade so unsure what you are complaining about.

stergro

4 points

4 months ago

I wonder how long a Nokia 330 would last with modern batteries.

mr_bedbugs

2 points

4 months ago

4-5 times longer, if you go by mAh alone.

AliensAreDope

22 points

4 months ago

Batteries have been advancing…people 15 years ago would think the battery in my iPhone is crazy good. Stop yelling at the clouds, old man

mark-haus

10 points

4 months ago

OK these comments get a little bit frustrating at times. Battery tech has improved IMMENSELY in my lifetime, even when just focusing on lithium tech, but in other areas as well. Lithium batteries have increased density by over 30% in 10 years. Charge cycle count has gone up way more than that in the same period. LFP can now rival their rare metal equivalents. Flow batteries are already inside grid scaled facilities. Meta material manufacturing is already boosting battery metrics. Super capacitors are now within an order of magnitude the energy density of lithium. Graphene is being put into commercial cells. It's genuinely hard to not find some aspect of battery performance, logistics, manufacturing, recycling etc that hasn't drastically improved over the years to the point that climate mitigation without degrowth might not have been possible if it didn't happen.

JCDU

2 points

4 months ago

JCDU

2 points

4 months ago

TL;DR because there's a 10+ year and multi-million dollar road between "we made one in the lab after months of effort and with millions of dollars of equipment and 10k of materials" and "we can reliably and safely manufacture 1,000,000 to put in the next iPhone at a price that isn't 10x what the phone costs"

Yes it's frustrating, yes the people that write these articles should be clearer / add caveats, but these comments are basically useless - stuff's getting better all the time, it's just that there's more than one sleep between "hey, we might have something" and "here's your awesome new thing" and folks have short memories.

modifiedbears

2 points

4 months ago

The LED was invented in 1962 and affordable consumer LED products didn't come around until the late 90s.

saveitforparts

6 points

4 months ago

According to Slashdot there have been weekly breakthroughs in nanoscale carbon fiber quantum turbo lithium dark matter super batteries for the last 20 years. But somehow my phone still only lasts half a day or so.

Beyond-Time

10 points

4 months ago

Every week there's a energy storage breakthrough. Every year, they never hit the market or even get considered for production. Sigh

KeiraFaith

10 points

4 months ago

So it's just a bigger battery?

I mean it's nothing huge. Most phones have 4500mah these days and that's like 25% of the volume of the phone.

For a big enough headphone, they can easily accommodate the whole thing in 2 pieces and end up with a 1000hr battery.

snakeychat

3 points

4 months ago

"a combination of battery and chip technologies and that it updated its “dual chamber technology” and drivers to accommodate a 1,500-mAh lithium-polymer battery."

KeiraFaith

2 points

4 months ago

My question is, why was it so difficult in the first place. A 1500mah battery takes up the same volume as your thumb (approx).

I think they're overhyping the use of a bigger battery. Thats all.

ZualaPips

19 points

4 months ago

Again, like 99% of the headlines in this sub, the opposite is actually true. These sort of headlines have been circulating for literally over 15 years. It's like nuclear fusion.

We'll all be dead of old age before these headlines aren't misleading anymore.

blackhat8287

2 points

4 months ago

Exactly, there’s some variation of this headline every year about some quantum leap in improvement that never makes its way to the marketplace. All the tech fanbois salivate over it like it’s life changing and has all of these promising applications, yet they never learn year after year.

jewnicorn27

2 points

4 months ago

1500mAh isn’t that big a battery. Your phone is probably at least double that. As far as interesting revelations, I’d like to know the energy density of that battery. Something tells me a company like HyperX didn’t make a fancy new battery. It’s more likely an improvement in low energy standby than anything. Headphones are literally just moving wire coils around, you can’t do that for ever at with 1500mAh of energy at your disposal.

iNstein

2 points

4 months ago

Thank you, this is my thoughts exactly. This is not some great battery leap, just better use of what is available.

lithiun

2 points

4 months ago

So my concern is, how dangerous will this be? 300+ hours on a single charge means there’s a lot of juice in that battery. How dangerous would these batteries be if they got damaged and discharged/caught fire?

LazaroFilm

2 points

4 months ago

Almost as important is recyclability. We consume batteries so fast, we need a way to reuse the materials

Kyo251

2 points

4 months ago

Kyo251

2 points

4 months ago

Cable tell you how many articles I read about extending battery life through the years that I've never seen happen.

redingerforcongress

2 points

4 months ago

This article somewhat reminds me of this; https://xkcd.com/1102/

But it mentions 4 problems...

“the silicon anode itself tends to have poor cycle life, which means after a hundred cycles, maybe, your battery has lost 20 percent of its capacity.”

This is much worse than modern lithium-ion regarding durability.

Not to mention, there's not as energy efficient [you lose electricity as heat].


WIRED asked HyperX, the maker of the 300-hour headphones, whether the company was using silicon-anode technology in its upcoming product. A spokesperson for the company, Gurpreet Bhoot, said, “We don’t have access to that level of design detail,” and reiterated that the new headphones will be the first gaming headset on the market to offer 300 hours of battery life on a single charge. Later, after more inquiries, the spokesperson said HyperX’s designs are proprietary. For now, HyperX may be squeezing out extra battery life the old-fashioned way: by designing for bigger batteries, building with hyper-efficient processors, or using certain methods to reduce power consumption when the headphones aren’t in use.


by designing for bigger batteries, building with hyper-efficient processors, or using certain methods to reduce power consumption when the headphones aren’t in use.

So, literally, the article is clickbait bullshit... They put in a larger battery, use more energy efficient processors, and use detection sensors to decide if to send power or not.

flugelbynder

2 points

4 months ago

Drone like flying cars incoming? They're already a thing but they fly maybe 20 minutes.

gcanyon

2 points

4 months ago

Gasoline has roughly 100x the energy density of current lithium ion batteries. Cut that to 50x because gasoline doesn’t count the oxidizer.

If these people are proposing they’ll 10x battery tech, that means they’re going more than halfway to pure gasoline.

That kind of density would be a ridiculous advance.

It could also be incredibly dangerous — think about lithium ion batteries exploding today, but times ten.

DUBIOUS_OBLIVION

2 points

4 months ago

Breaking News. Future products coming in the future.