Do you have evidence of that? To claim such you'd need to know what Apple's margins are only on iPhones before and after removing the charger. You'd also need to distinguish what comes from the charger and what comes from modified packaging and other changes made concurrently. You'd also have to factor in changes in worldwide tariffs, supply chain costs and issues, and more. Then factor in inflation. It's also possible Apple would have raised iPhone base prices if it included a charger and by not including a charger, Apple kept prices the same, which is an effective reduction.
Read what I wrote about iPhone SE 2020 where Apple was selling it for the same exact price... whether it came with power adapter and EarPods or not. Side by side, same price.
www.macrumors.com
www.cnet.com
www.theverge.com
There are also a lot of people 100% against including yet another charger in everyone's box because most of us have drawers full of them and don't like the stock charger regardless.
Apple has no one to blame but themselves. If Apple had simply offered free 5W chargers in minimal packaging, which would cost Apple very little to manufacture, or an equivalent discount towards a better charger or a MagSafe puck to the people who asked for them, it would have been nothing but good PR for Apple. Helping the environment without negativly imacting customers. But now Apple gets to pay a fat fine which is ultimately more than those free cheap chargers would have cost them, not to mention the future costs of having more country-specific packaging to include the chargers for Brazil.
By not causing the charger they actually lowered the cost of the phone especially in these trying times where prices are high and supply chain issues are profound.
Exactly. People really need to stop using car analogies. So often they think they’re being clever when really the analogy they make doesn’t make sense.
Yes, this is proof: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...providing-chargers-earphones-new-iPhones.html
If you want a clue to how apple does business check out the Netherlands euro fines thread. They would rather pay the fine.
That’s not proof, that’s making the square fit into a round hole. Apple clearly saved money from raw materials, to green house gases in manufacturing boxes, to shipping over seas, trucking, retail space and all the while being more environmentally friendly.
Wrong. Apple profited 6.5B, if the cost of the phone was lowered they wouldn't have profited by such a astronomical amount, in fact, they wouldn't have profited at all if the savings were passed onto the consumer as you keep lying about.: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...providing-chargers-earphones-new-iPhones.html
Apple lowered their own cost, but increased the cost for anyone who needs a charger.
That is proof that the savings were not passed onto the consumer, as you keep lying about.
This is likely breaking the law, it is a tie, a forced purchase - what some here can’t seem to comprehend is that if Apple wants to reduce waste they are going to have to convince consumers to make that choice in Brazil. They are likely to be allowed to give consumers the option but any price difference could be perceived as a forced purchase.
$100 of millions to pay attorneys to research the regulations in Brazil? That's some contention.
How dare this foreign country have different consumer protection laws to my own, clearly the solution is to use Coercion to force them to align with the oh so perfect laws of my own country.
