Photos purporting to show an Apple MagSafe Battery Pack prototype surfaced Wednesday, revealing an earlier design with a glossy finish and a repositioned charging LED. The device also features internal identification markings.
The device looks genuine, but it’s very different from Apple’s final product, which went on sale last July at $99.
Early MagSafe Battery Pack is so shiny
It’s not often we get a glimpse at prototype Apple products — especially so soon after they make their debut. When we do, they give us a rare glimpse at some of the small design tweaks and changes Apple made ahead of launch.
This particular MagSafe Battery Pack unit sports a glossy finish, much like the old white MacBook or an Apple charging brick. Its charging LED is positioned on the back, so it’s obscured when the device is attached to an iPhone.
In comparison, the final product shipped with a matte finish. And the charging LED’s location on the bottom of the battery pack makes charging status easier to see. The actual battery pack also features a rubber surface on its inside and an obvious MagSafe ring, which the prototype lacks.
Finally, one edge of the prototype carries some identification markings and a code that can be scanned internally to track it.
Probably not a fake
There is a chance this could be a third-party MagSafe Battery Pack knockoff. After all, how many Apple products haven’t been cloned by counterfeiters? But we have no reason to believe it’s not a genuine Apple prototype.
The photos were published Wednesday by Internal Archive on Twitter, which is “dedicated to finding, sharing, and preserving Apple Internal information.” The account previously published lots of Apple leaks, and they all seem totally reliable.
A prototype MagSafe Battery Pack. This unit has a side engraving and seems to be missing the fabric that is usually found on the front of these devices. There also seems to be a status LED on the front, a placement that didn’t make it to production (on bottom). #AppleInternal pic.twitter.com/eiSQ7oNzAQ
— Internal Archive (@ArchiveInternal) January 5, 2022