So you're saying that between two models, you don't notice a difference, and so no breakthrough had been made? The S7 has double the cores, a 20% capacity increase, and (by your own admission) "lasts about as long". That is excellent development, considering the two year turn around cycle.
Fuel cells had long since fallen out of fashion; consumer studies have shown that people don't like being immolated by their cellphones. Fuel cells were touted as the "next best thing, once we've sorted out these problems", and were never really considered a breakthrough.\, since the problems were never really overcome; expensive to manufacture, uses rare, expensive, non-green materials, doesn't produce a high voltage, so you're charging an intermediate battery, and produces a shitload of heat, which leads to aforementioned immolation. If these problems ever gets sorted, this will be a big breakthrough; until then, though, Motorola were speaking too soon.
This is an article from 7 months ago (to the day) which is hardly enough time for a "breakthrough" to be packaged for consumer consumption. They also don't speak about the energy capacity at all. Were they charging a 3600mAh battery in 40 seconds? I doubt it, because then they would've said so. This is a very early proof of concept, and, like fuel cells, are actually a different technology altogether, rather than an improvement on the typical batteries we use right now.
Photosynthesis is an energy generation technique, not an energy storage device. Also, low voltages and power, since it's orders lower powered than solar cells.
"Solid state batteries that charge in 7 minutes, powers your device for months" - Citation needed. Solid state batteries have higher energy densities, sure, but not to power you device for months. Also, poor conductivity is still a massive hurdle in the development of these batteries. The real advantage of these will be a much free-er form factor.
Liquid can be drained and replaced with charged liquids? You'll have to be a bit more descriptive, I'm afraid, this sound kinda like fuel cells, but also not, so I'm not sure what you mean here.
These last ones and the link you provided are all so far from being ready to manufacture.. I think a larger issue here is journalistic responsibility being ignored for the sake of a headline. Early life proof of concepts should not be reported on as "the next best thing" or "the technology that will save a generation", as the development of these kinds of tech very often run into hurdles and dead ends. True breakthroughs that we reap the benefit from happens quietly and wrapped in marketing term, rather than scientific ones, but it should not be ignored.
