X
Business

MagSafe being withheld from third parties?

One of my favorite things about the MacBook Pro is the MagSafe power connector, but the more I use it the more I am finding that things might not be as rosy as I originally thought.
Written by Jason D. O'Grady, Contributor
One of my favorite things about the MacBook Pro is the MagSafe power connector, but the more I use it the more I am finding that things might not be as rosy as I originally thought.
For starters the MagSafe connector comes out easily. I know that it's designed to do that, but I'm starting to think that it comes out a little too easily. Half of the time when I'm sitting on the couch with my MacBook Pro the MagSafe pops out and I don't notice until I get the low battery warning. I'm just wondering how long it will be before I don't notice that it has popped out and I leave it "charging" overnight only to find the battery dead when I open my MBP up on a flight.
The other thing that worries me about the MagSafe connector is the lack of third party options that are available for it. None of the traditional third party power connector manufacturers (Madsonline, Lind, SmartDisk) have options for the MacBook Pro. Sure, Apple didn't release the design of the connector to third parties any earlier than the rest of us saw it on 10 January 2006, but I get a sense that they aren't exactly offering a helping hand either.
Another curious thing about the MacBook Pro is the lack of developer documentation. Usually Apple releases a hardware developer note about 30 days after a product has been released, but there's no sign of a dev note for the MacBook Pro.
Is Apple taking their own sweet time in releasing the technical specs of the MacBook Pro in order to maximize sales of the new 85 watt MagSafe power adapters (US$79) and batteries (US$129)? Or is there a legitimate reason why they're taking so long? I don't have the answers for the delay but it's starting to make me suspicious. Even if they're intentionally dragging their feet to line their pockets, is there anything really wrong with that?
Editorial standards