I don't believe they have. That's the reason why we have charging bowls. Long range energy transmission hasn't been shown to be feasible using magnetics. I'm surprised they haven't started going into infrared lasers or microwaves with tracking technology instead.
" That's the reason why we have charging bowls..."
I believe Intel's charging bowl also works based on the resonance technology...isn't it? Looks to me that Intel is promoting resonance technology based charging.
"WiTricity power sources and capture devices are specially designed magnetic resonators that efficiently transfer power over large distances via the magnetic near-field."
Setting asside the contradiction of terms: "large-distances" and "near-field", I would like to know how efficient this transfer is. Ideally it would be 1:1, correct? Or does resonance enable 1:x, where x > 1? Now that would be something! I've long held the belief that there is an element, or combination of elements, out there that when excited by an EM wave of some kind would actually produce more power than the excitation source provides. An exercise of chemical engineering, I suppose, but is this it?
I think that's one of the major problems with wireless charging - actual efficiency. Seems like the industry groups don't want to give actual speed specs, but other pubs have tackled this problem: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/look-ma-no-wires-a-mini-review-of-googles-nexus-wireless-charger/
I think one of the main issues with mass adoption of wirless charging is that, at the moment, it's not terribly necessary. I don't have trouble plugging in my device normally, but don't want to purchase the infrastructure to do it wirelessly. Is wireless charging something that the public really wants?