So you're saying the included cable is totally useless if you don't have a USB-c charger. Doesn't sound environmentally friendly there Apple. More trash for the landfills.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Must Compensate Brazilian Customer Over $1,000 for Selling iPhone Without a Charger, Judge Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree. (I work for a manufacturing plant) Cost savings in the process is definitely something we ALWAYS look at.
I neither know nor care.
Even more trash for the environment: My old charger still works, but the cable (USB-A to lightning) is broken because it’s not made to last. So I can either buy a new USB-C charger to use the included new cable or buy a new USB-A to lightning cable for my old charger and new phone. And then the included USB-C cable is just waste.
Your argument would be valid if cables were as durable as the chargers, but they’re not.
No, the Max variants are an expansion of the product line, and thus have no comparable product from the era of the X or before. And frankly one could potentially say the Pro variants are also expansions and the 13 is more akin to the X.
In either case you're focused on the minutiae and missing the larger picture that prices have effectively gone down many times more than the likely manufacturing cost of a 5W single port charger. Something which, if you reread the various debates now and in the past, relatively few people actually ever used.
Because answering the question truthfully would invalidate your claim.
I never said I have that. I do know the price didn't go down when they stopped including the charger, which would make a sound argument that it's not just for making more profit if it did go down.Please share the cost sheet you have access to so we can confirm
This is not about $20 or $30 bucks, it's about a corporation making some people buy another item to use the item they already bought, a tie in sale according to Brazilian law, and since the expectation for most phones is for them to come with a charger, I can certainly understand how someone might not know that Apple doesn't include the charger.
I suppose the fine is more about the deterrent than it is to compensate the user. if it was just about compensation then Apple could just ignore it and pay the small fee.
I dont think this was about money, more about waste. If you sell 100m iPhones and only 10% of them needed a new charger then thats 90m chargers you manufactured for no reason with all the waste associated with building them.
The problem is in more developing countries where people may not have had a previous iPhone / device with a decent charger people would expect everything in the box needed to operate the phone. Hence the law. Apple's fault for ignoring it really. Could have just gave a free charger for every sold iPhone or explicitly asked users in Brazil do you actually want one when they purchased it.
Every country is different, if you want to make money there you have to respect their rules.
I dont think this was about money, more about waste. If you sell 100m iPhones and only 10% of them needed a new charger then thats 90m chargers you manufactured for no reason with all the waste associated with building them.
The problem is in more developing countries where people may not have had a previous iPhone / device with a decent charger people would expect everything in the box needed to operate the phone. Hence the law. Apple's fault for ignoring it really. Could have just gave a free charger for every sold iPhone or explicitly asked users in Brazil do you actually want one when they purchased it.
Every country is different, if you want to make money there you have to respect their rules.
Nope, sorry, I really don't know nor care if the 3nm process will end up being more cost or less cost for apple. However, it would be totally idiotic of Apple if it ended up costing more for such a small difference in size.
i agree with brazil
Once i try to charge my samsung a20 to some charger 18 or 20 or some call as pd power adapter. It broke my phone
1. nintendo switch use usb c
2. laptop m1 using usb c
3. some my android phone usb c.
Who know mistake happen like me thinking usb c 18 but put m1 usb c ? conform fry phone again.
Once i try to charge my samsung a20 to some charger 18 or 20 or some call as pd power adapter. It broke my phone
1. nintendo switch use usb c
2. laptop m1 using usb c
3. some my android phone usb c.
Who know mistake happen like me thinking usb c 18 but put m1 usb c ? conform fry phone again.
Nonsense.
The X had no comparable either and was ' an expansion of the product line' too, so it's perfectly valid to compare the X to the Pro Max.
You cannot get a fairer comparison than flagship against flagship.
I kind of doubt that, most likely whoever's thing you buy that needs batteries doesn't actually make batteries too, so it's not a follow on product that you have to purchase from them.
Nonsense.
The X is comparable to the current similarly sized descendants, such as the 13 or 13 pro.
You cannot get a fairer comparison than products from the same lineage.
As you note - the X departed from prior models, and thus was a new flagship not comparable to prior flagship models.
The same logic applies to the Max variants. Flagship to flagship is not comparable when the underlying product changes substantially.
Last edited:
No if I want to use the cable I buy a charger and dont throw it out.
I like how no-one here has realized that Apple's cost savings are only $2-$3 per charger per phone and not $20-$30.
That's how much it costs to manufacture these devices with FoxConn (their contract manufaturer) in Shenzhen, inclusive of landed sea freight shipping fees to their destination country.
Anyone with even a little bit of electronics manufacturing, export or distribution experience knows this, as it's the most basic and commonly produced electronic item sold in the world.
So by not including the charger they are not able to reduce the selling price of the phone by $20-$30, and if they did, they would be cutting into their own profit margins since their actual cost savings would only be a tenth of that amount, per phone.
Whether they're passing on the cost savings to consumers is irrelevant as its a matter of a few bucks.
That article claiming a cost savings of $6.5B per year for Apple is ludicrous as Apple sells an average of 200+M phones a year, so the author is using the retail price of $29 to calculate the total cost savings.
Yes this would obviously help considerably to help reduce unnecessary waste.
The only thing that stinks about this is Apple's price gouging with its USB chargers by selling them for 10 times their landed cost, which has put them in this position of looking like utter thieves when they no longer bundle it with their phones.
That's how much it costs to manufacture these devices with FoxConn (their contract manufaturer) in Shenzhen, inclusive of landed sea freight shipping fees to their destination country.
Anyone with even a little bit of electronics manufacturing, export or distribution experience knows this, as it's the most basic and commonly produced electronic item sold in the world.
So by not including the charger they are not able to reduce the selling price of the phone by $20-$30, and if they did, they would be cutting into their own profit margins since their actual cost savings would only be a tenth of that amount, per phone.
Whether they're passing on the cost savings to consumers is irrelevant as its a matter of a few bucks.
That article claiming a cost savings of $6.5B per year for Apple is ludicrous as Apple sells an average of 200+M phones a year, so the author is using the retail price of $29 to calculate the total cost savings.
Yes this would obviously help considerably to help reduce unnecessary waste.
The only thing that stinks about this is Apple's price gouging with its USB chargers by selling them for 10 times their landed cost, which has put them in this position of looking like utter thieves when they no longer bundle it with their phones.
I love this strange world that people live in where USB-C is ubiquitous and the de facto standard and Apple is wrong for not using it but also nobody has USB-C chargers and Apple is wrong for assuming they do.
... and if Apple were including USBA to Lightning cables instead, there were be widespread complaints of Apple being behind the times shipping "old technology"...
I don't know about Brazil, but it seems in most parts of the world it's rather easy to buy USB-A and USB-C chargers from a wide variety of manufacturers. I'm unsure why anyone would have to purchase it from Apple.
They sell on average 200+M per phone (publically available info).
Experts have done a BOM analysis of the chargers and others who have experience in electronics manufacturing and distribution like myself will also tell you the actual manufacturing costs are closer to $2-$3.
Google "iphone usb charger BOM costs teardown" since we cant share links and DYOR.
The article stating $6.5B is bunk.
Experts have done a BOM analysis of the chargers and others who have experience in electronics manufacturing and distribution like myself will also tell you the actual manufacturing costs are closer to $2-$3.
Google "iphone usb charger BOM costs teardown" since we cant share links and DYOR.
The article stating $6.5B is bunk.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to some people in here it’s not a profit maximizing exercise from apples side, but solely to do good and be more green. And surely it’s good for the environment not to produce and ship chargers that nobody needs.
So if the environment is the sole argument then just include a voucher for a free USB-C charger with new phones. Solves the problem about not adapting new technology.
But what really happened here was that apple decided to make 2 y.o. chargers obsolete, not including chargers with new phones and claiming that people could use their old (but obsolete) chargers…
Two years without chargers, new 20W sold for $25, so $23 in profit according to you.
Profit from charger sales = 200,000,000 units/year * 2 years * $23 profit = 9.2B. Obviously not everyone buys a charger, and obviously your numbers are estimates, and so are the articles. The real number is obviously less.
Don't forget to add the profit from every phone sold at the same cost without a charger:
Profit from cost reduction = 200,000,000 units/year * 2 years * $2 in profit for every sale = $800M in profit. The real number is higher as you claim the real cost is might be somewhere between 2-3/unit.
Obviously the numbers above are just random estimates based on the numbers you provided. However, billions of dollars in profit are a reasonable estimate, and I'm inclined to believe the articles over you, as well as the basic math you didn't do.
Profit from charger sales = 200,000,000 units/year * 2 years * $23 profit = 9.2B. Obviously not everyone buys a charger, and obviously your numbers are estimates, and so are the articles. The real number is obviously less.
Don't forget to add the profit from every phone sold at the same cost without a charger:
Profit from cost reduction = 200,000,000 units/year * 2 years * $2 in profit for every sale = $800M in profit. The real number is higher as you claim the real cost is might be somewhere between 2-3/unit.
Obviously the numbers above are just random estimates based on the numbers you provided. However, billions of dollars in profit are a reasonable estimate, and I'm inclined to believe the articles over you, as well as the basic math you didn't do.
Last edited by a moderator:
The article already states that there was a separate revenue of $200M for additional charger sales.
I would suggest you re-read the article.
Garbage in garbage out. The garbage in are some unsubstantiated claims from some internet blog. The garbage out is the veracity at which these claims are taken at face value. Obviously people pick their source they believe is most authoritative, even if not.