SiC battery proponents think Samsung is hiding something: Are we all caught up in a conspiracy?

Vocal phone users on social media frequently choose the most unusual hills to die on. I'm in no position to judge, but what I do know is that the latest proverbial hill covers Samsung and the silicon-carbon (SiC) debate.

The debate centers on one simple question: If silicon-carbon batteries promise higher energy density and longer battery life, why haven't Samsung and other OEMs adopted this technology when a handful of phone makers from China already have?

Interestingly, the answer is already out there, at least according to industry leaders. Nevertheless, the social media crowd hasn't let up, with numerous critics continuing to challenge the industry's narrative.

They seemingly believe in a conspiracy that Samsung and other manufacturers are either unwilling or incapable of adopting SiC batteries in their phones. Are they correct?

Well, here's the thing. We can't know for sure. We're not battery manufacturers with degrees in chemical and electrical engineering. And I'd argue that many people complaining about batteries on social media aren't either. Call it a gut feeling.

With that being said, after spending more time looking into the issue and even talking to Samsung at MWC, I'm personally much more inclined to believe the explanations laid out by industry experts over social media experts.

Fundamentally speaking, smartphone users will never say no to more battery life. We've all gotten used to recharging our phones at the end of every day, but few of us would mind an improvement.

Silicon-carbon batteries promise a solution, at least, in theory. They have a higher density than regular Lithium-Ion batteries, which means they can store more energy in a smaller space.

A handful of Chinese OEMs have adopted this technology. Samsung, Apple, and others have not.

That's where things start to get weird — and where conspiracy theories arise.

First, what is a SiC battery? In layman's terms, it's still a Lithium-Ion battery, except it uses a silicon anode instead of a graphite anode.

Research into the technology actually began as early as 1976, even before graphite anodes were adopted as a solution to the silicon problem. Researchers ultimately chose to stick to graphite after observing severe swelling and shrinking in silicon anodes during charge and discharge. Over time, this severe swelling and shrinking leads to relatively fast anode degradation.

Guess what? That problem still hasn't been completely solved all these decades later. It's physics, and silicon-carbon anodes have inherent limitations.

As a workaround, EV manufacturers like Tesla have taken a slightly different approach by infusing graphite anodes with around 5% silicon.

In other words, simply replacing graphite anodes with silicon anodes in modern Lithium-Ion batteries is neither simple nor particularly wise. These batteries can degrade and swell — and possibly even fail catastrophically — much faster than standard Lithium-Ion units.

Tesla, for one, determined that a tiny silicon addition is worth the risk. But clearly, battery manufacturers still don't have a cure-all solution. They are trying to strike the right risk-reward balance. And, arguably, some brands may be more willing to take greater risks than others.

Apparently, some Chinese smartphone makers believe they have found that balance. Samsung, Apple, Nothing, and others are not so convinced.

There's also another potential issue, as highlighted by UniverseIce last year. US regulations classify single-cell batteries above 5,000mAh as dangerous goods. This complicates global shipments and is likely why Samsung, Apple, and Google phones destined for the global market or the USA don't exceed 5,000mAh.

But while this might explain the 5,000mAh limit, it doesn't necessarily explain why Samsung hasn't switched to SiC yet.

At MWC, Samsung told us that although progress is being made in SiC battery development, the technology hasn't reached a comfortably safe level. It still hasn't met Samsung's safety standards, which are likely more stringent due to the company's brief history with catastrophic battery failures in the Note 7.

Plus, considering that Samsung offers seven years of OS upgrades for most of its Galaxy phones, the idea that a battery could deteriorate much faster than even a lithium-ion one doesn't seem to fit the company's long-term vision.

All things considered, it's understandable why people want better battery life in their phones. We do, too. And it's understandable that some want progress to happen much faster.

But throughout this journey, I think some people may have gone too far with conspiracy theories. I suppose they do come from a genuine desire for better consumer products, even if the sentiment might be entirely self-centered. Nevertheless, such theories tend to murky the waters and hide the real truth.

So, are industry giants like Samsung hiding something from us? Are SiC batteries fully ready to replace standard Li-Ion cells? It's not impossible, but to me, it sounds far-fetched and maybe a bit too much on the paranoid side.

The more likely explanation is that, at this stage, after decades of research, the market is split between OEMs willing to take the risk or those that believe they have found a safe-enough silicon and graphite mix, and OEMs who have a different take on the matter and don't want to risk it.

There is no universal standard yet. Some OEMs are apparently more bold than others. Samsung, along with other industry-leading brands, simply don't share that philosophy and want to be safe than sorry.

Thankfully, SiC development doesn't appear to have stopped. Samsung is reportedly working on the technology as well — but indeed, it is taking things slowly and safely.

Don't believe it? Still holding on to a conspiracy theory? Consider the fact that Samsung has taken many risks over the years, even if detractors would say otherwise.

After all, Samsung was the first to take a risk on foldable display technology. It was one of the few major brands that experimented with under-display cameras for years. And now, it is the only OEM using Privacy Display technology. None of these solutions are perfect — hence the risk-taking element.

Arguably, the company hasn't lost its innovative spirit. However, some risks appear more calculated than others. A battery that could deteriorate too quickly might simply be too risky for a global manufacturer of Samsung's caliber. At least, for now.