> And a 40% increase in this consumption for a very minimal increase in 'convenience' (itself debatable) is not negligently wasteful.
That's your opinion. I have a different opinion. How do we choose which of us is right? In general, we decide on the allocation of scarce resources through markets and price signals. Electricity is metered almost everywhere. If wireless charging's 40% increase in energy use doesn't hurt adoption, it means that the utility gained from wireless charging outweighs the resources consumed. That you personally have different utility function doesn't invalidate anyone else's, and you certainly don't get to make people use your utility function instead of their own. If you think electricity is too cheap and doesn't incorporate necessary externalities, you can argue for some kind of extra climate tax. But arguing against specific products here because you personally don't find them useful isn't the right approach.
Amdahl does though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
> And a 40% increase in this consumption for a very minimal increase in 'convenience' (itself debatable) is not negligently wasteful.
That's your opinion. I have a different opinion. How do we choose which of us is right? In general, we decide on the allocation of scarce resources through markets and price signals. Electricity is metered almost everywhere. If wireless charging's 40% increase in energy use doesn't hurt adoption, it means that the utility gained from wireless charging outweighs the resources consumed. That you personally have different utility function doesn't invalidate anyone else's, and you certainly don't get to make people use your utility function instead of their own. If you think electricity is too cheap and doesn't incorporate necessary externalities, you can argue for some kind of extra climate tax. But arguing against specific products here because you personally don't find them useful isn't the right approach.