Other Good MagSafe Wallets

ESR Magnetic Wallet HaloLock With Find My for $40: Like Apple’s MagSafe wallet, this one has Find My support. You can use the flap on the back as a grip and fit two cards easily. It does require recharging with a proprietary cable, which is annoying, though it didn’t lose much battery life after six months. Too bad I’ve already lost the cable.

OtterBox Symmetry Series Cactus Leather MagSafe Wallet for $45: It’s nice and simple, thin, lightweight, has a strong hold on my phone case, and offers a dedicated fabric-covered slot at the bottom to push the cards out (I was able to fit three without much trouble). This OtterBox wallet is made from cactus-based leather, which feels nearly as luxurious as real leather. Just know that cactus leather isn’t as eco-friendly as it’s made out to be—these cases are still infused with layers of plastics.

Apple FineWoven MagSafe Case for $50: Any time the wallet is separated from your iPhone, you’ll get an alert and can track it in Apple’s Find My app. It has a single slot that can fit up to three cards, but to take the cards out, you have to remove it from your iPhone and push the cards up via the slot on the back. Unfortunately, Apple’s MagSafe wallets exclusively use the company’s proprietary FineWoven material (made of recycled materials). It’s a commendable effort to reduce reliance on leather production, but several WIRED reviewers have said the material doesn’t hold up all that well after some time.

Bluebonnet Minimalist Full-Grain Leather MagSafe Wallet Card Holder for $68: Bluebonnet’s wallet is thin, even with cards inside, and also comes with an elastic grip you can put your fingers through to hold the phone more securely. The magnets are stronger than those in other wallets I’ve tested, though the bottom moves a bit when using the grip. Bluebonnet claims it can fit up to three cards, but I’ve been able to fit only two (my license and debit card). It’s a struggle to insert or remove more than that.

Avoid This Wallet

Ohsnap! Snap Grip Wallet for $100: I had high hopes for this one, mainly because of its build quality. The wallet is aluminum, can hold up to eight cards (depending on whether they’re lettered or not), has MagSafe support, and comes with a grip that doubles as a kickstand. Unfortunately, the grip is made of plastic, and it broke after a short time (it won’t fold properly back into place). The magnetic hold isn’t as strong as other MagSafe wallets, even with a MagSafe-approved case on my phone. None of that is great, especially at this high price.

Benks 600D MagSafe Wallet with Stand for $33: The Benks 600D MagSafe wallet might be made with Kelvar, but it sure doesn’t feel like it. The inside shell of the wallet is made with plastic, and after just a day of use, I spotted a crack in that plastic right next to the hinge. Worse, I tried to apply a bit of pressure to see if the hinge would still hold up, which completely warped the MagSafe ring. Even without clear durability problems, this wallet wouldn’t make the top of the list. It’s reasonably priced at $30 and comes in a handful of attractive colors, but it’s limited to just three cards, and there’s no easy way to get them out.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Public electric vehicle charging stations in America have a bad reputation. They’re notorious for breaking down, charging at a snail’s pace, refusing customer payment and leaving drivers stranded without juice.

Advocates for electric vehicles, or EVs, worry that reliability concerns are hampering adoption at a critical moment in the campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but data on the topic is limited.

To address this problem, researchers at the University of Washington designed a survey to tease out exactly how much a car owner’s perception of public charging reliability influences their willingness to buy their first EV. The research was published in Transport Policy.

The team created a series of hypothetical scenarios to study the factors that might nudge a skeptical shopper towards an EV over a gasoline-powered car, including vehicle and gas prices, driving range and public charging access.

The results were dramatic. Participants with a negative view of public charging were much less likely to choose an EV than those with a moderate view. It took some serious hypothetical improvements to offset those negative perceptions: The EV needed to be discounted 30%, have 366 extra miles of range or there needed to be 30,000 additional public charging stations.

“No one knew how much charger reliability was coloring the decisions of prospective EV buyers,” said senior author Don MacKenzie, a UW associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

“I was not at all surprised by the direction of the response. What surprised me was the size. These were monster results. This is a warning for the whole industry.”

The results come at a tenuous time for EV adoption in America. The market continues to grow, but political factors like the end of federal tax incentives are complicating sales outlooks. The federal government is also challenging California’s plan to phase out gas car sales, which could threaten similar efforts in Washington and several other states.

The state of public charging isn’t inspiring confidence in buyers, either. Studies in recent years have shown significant reliability issues with public networks. There are signs that the situation is improving, and home charging is an option for some drivers, but the threat of slow and flaky public chargers remains a powerful deterrent for anyone venturing outside their “home range.”

“We know there’s a lot of range anxiety out there,” said lead author Rubina Singh, a UW doctoral student of civil and environmental engineering. “EV owners often tolerate charging problems, while newcomers are less aware of the hurdles. If trust erodes, adoption could slow.”

The team found it tricky to measure the link between station reliability and buyer behavior because there weren’t obvious real-world groups to compare. Tesla’s stations get consistently higher marks than other networks, but Tesla cars and their owners are too different in other ways to make for a useful comparison. Simply asking people for their thoughts about charging may produce answers that are colored by their overall feelings about EVs.

Instead, the researchers turned to hypothetical scenarios. They recruited roughly 1,500 participants who had never owned an EV and surveyed them in three groups, asking the first to picture a world where public charging is a mess, the second to imagine a charging utopia and the third to simply give their preexisting opinions about charging.

Each group then went “shopping.” Each round of the survey, participants chose between an EV and a comparable gas-powered car. The researchers tweaked variables such as vehicle cost, gas prices and range, and trends emerged over several rounds.

Participants with a negative view of public charging demanded strikingly large concessions before choosing an EV. In some cases, the adjustment needed was nonsensically large.

“People wanted a 366-mile increase in range before they bought an EV,” MacKenzie said. “Lots of EVs don’t even have a 366-mile range today. That’s obviously not a practical demand. But it illustrates the strength of this effect.”

There were other surprises in the data, too.

“The results were basically the same for people who have access to home charging and people who don’t,” Singh said. “So even if they wouldn’t actually have to rely on the charging network, respondents were still concerned about reliability.”

As the auto industry works to bring EVs into the mainstream, these findings are both a warning and an invitation for further study. Little is known, Singh said, about what specific improvements would have the greatest impact on public charging perception. Asking the right questions could help stakeholders throughout the industry figure out where to invest.

“What are the specific factors that would convince skeptics?” she said. “Does a station need to be online 90% of the time to improve a user’s perception? Or 95%? Or 99%? Or would improving the point of sale system help more? Where do you put your dollars to have the greatest effect on public perception?”

What’s clear, MacKenzie said, is that reliability must be prioritized as charging networks expand.

“This is the Achilles’ heel right now for EVs,” he said.

“If we push the broader market towards EVs, or if it grows on its own before we can fix this problem, it’s really bad news for continued growth. I think it could engender a real backlash. It only takes one bad experience to lose a customer. That’s a big danger for EV adoption.”

Technology veterans, politicians and Nobel Prize winners called on nations around the world Monday to quickly establish “red lines” too dangerous for artificial intelligence to cross.

More than 200 prominent figures including 10 Nobel laureates and scientists working at AI giants Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Microsoft and OpenAI signed on to a letter released at the start of the latest session of the United Nations General Assembly.

“AI holds immense potential to advance human well-being, yet its current trajectory presents unprecedented dangers,” the letter read.

“Governments must act decisively before the window for meaningful intervention closes.”

AI red lines would be internationally agreed bans on uses deemed too risky under any circumstances, according to creators of the letter.

Examples given included entrusting AI systems with command of nuclear arsenals or any kind of lethal autonomous weapons system.

Other red lines could be allowing AI to be used for mass surveillance, social scoring, cyberattacks, or impersonating people, according to those behind the campaign.

Those who signed the message urged governments to have AI red lines in place by the end of next year given the pace the technology is advancing.

“AI could soon far surpass human capabilities and escalate risks such as engineered pandemics, widespread disinformation, large-scale manipulation of individuals including children, national and international security concerns, mass unemployment, and systematic human rights violations,” the letter read.

“Left unchecked, many experts, including those at the forefront of development, warn that it will become increasingly difficult to exert meaningful human control in the coming years.”

© 2025 AFP