Because it’s incredibly wasteful and environmentally harmful. And the damage done far outweighs the marginal benefit of including a charger in the box with tens if not hundreds of millions of devices every year.
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
Because it’s incredibly wasteful and environmentally harmful. And the damage done far outweighs the marginal benefit of including a charger in the box with tens if not hundreds of millions of devices every year.
Wrong. Apple clearly saved money by eliminating the charger all while being greener in the process. Prices of everything went up along with supply chain issues. Apple removed the charger and didn’t raise the price of their phones. Your narrative is incorrect.
So, I’ll buy a TV without charging brick, or a kettle without its lead, a car without wheels. Ridiculous. The option should be the consumers.
Do you require a charger (bear in mind your old one will work just fine)
No, I have one
Great, enjoy your phone.
Yes, I wish to sell my old phone, with charger.
Here you go, sir, one charger to accompany your new phone.
Do you require a charger (bear in mind your old one will work just fine)
No, I have one
Great, enjoy your phone.
Yes, I wish to sell my old phone, with charger.
Here you go, sir, one charger to accompany your new phone.
Do you believe apple hires a separate staff to research regulations specifically in Brazil? And every location? Interesting.
But it did and MacBooks still do. As do iPads. Because Macs sell in far less quantity, they have significantly higher power requirements, and the charger has changed a few times over the years.
You miss the point. First of all it's not "a bit" more expensive. For an iPhone 13 starting at $699, the USB-C power adapter is $19, or 2.7% of the cost of the phone. Secondly, it's not a matter of not wanting to "pay extra" for the charger - it's the fact that that amounts to a 2.7% price increase, in addition to Apple's other regular price increases. Just like a gallon of ice cream no longer being a gallon, corporations use "de-contenting" as a way to increase prices/profit.
You might say, "yeah, but if the law forced them to include the charger, they'd just raise the price". Perhaps, but pricing is a complex process that takes into account consumer price sensitivity and market elacticity. Removing the charger was a quick plus-up to profits, whereas a price increase has other (possibly negative) consequences for the corporation and their market share. Short version: Apple likely would not have raised prices 2.7% above existing prices if they kept the charger in the package - they just wouldn't have made as much profit.
Because probably 90%+ of people already have a charger, and it’s absurd to include one in every single box just to assuage the tiny minority who don’t.
USB accessories (the ones I purchase anyway) rarely come with charging bricks. Anyone who needs a charging brick I have 15 or so at home. Just send a SSAE and I’ll be happy to forward.
If you need one buy one, if you don’t great. Easy.
This thread got boring fast... I hope Apple compensates all of you for the amount of defending you do on behalf of their Corporation. ✌️
Doesn’t matter - If the law says they can’t charge extra for them then if a consumer wants one they either have to bundle them in the box or hand out the stand alone chargers for free.
I agree. The analogy is not quite correct in detail, but I saw that. My point is still valid. In your attempt to appear intellectual, you missed that. The user had to know that a charger was not included, yet they purchased the product anyway and sued. It doesn't matter if the gas is more akin to electricity. It's essential in the car experience similar to the charger being essential in the iPhone experience. To take the analogy further in this case is a bit of a red herring. It's not a 'subtle key difference' - its not relevant in this instance. I could have said alternator or some other non-consumable but it would not have changed the point.
Like a person who buys a car, they know they need gas and that gas in not included with the purchase of the car. So, it would be absurd to sue for gas in this instance. Similarly with a charger, If you know it's essential and not included, to purchase the product and sue, make no sense.
Maybe reading comprehension should also be included in our education curriculum?
Getting less for the same amount is functionally equivalent to paying more.
We see this all the time, and it's supposed to be ok because the price didn't change. United seats get smaller, Taco Bell cups get thinner, and Dial bars have less soap all in the name of keeping the paid cost the same.
They know a charger isn’t included and don’t have a choice but to purchase one (if they need it).
If the law (again, created by the elected representatives of the people of Brazil) requires chargers for portable electronics to be provided at no additional charge then the forced purchase breaks that law.
Yes, they own a subsidiary company incorporated under Brazilian law that actually is the entity doing business in Brazil. That company has a legal staff of local lawyers whose responsibility is to know the laws of the country and tell Apple what they need to do to conform to them.
Good. Selling a product that's basic function is dependent upon either another purchase or already having said purchase should not be legal.
Imagine if everything worked like this?
Bought a new fridge. But you need to spend another $50 for the cable to plug it in.
Bought a new car. But you need to spend $100 for the cap that goes on the gas input.
You CANNOT use an iPhone without a charger. At all. Depending on people's past purchases to deflect blame is ridiculous. Thankfully I owned an android before buying my iPhone 13PM and so had a compatible usb-c charging brick. If I'd owned an older iPhone I would have been **** out of luck.
Imagine if everything worked like this?
Bought a new fridge. But you need to spend another $50 for the cable to plug it in.
Bought a new car. But you need to spend $100 for the cap that goes on the gas input.
You CANNOT use an iPhone without a charger. At all. Depending on people's past purchases to deflect blame is ridiculous. Thankfully I owned an android before buying my iPhone 13PM and so had a compatible usb-c charging brick. If I'd owned an older iPhone I would have been **** out of luck.
The phone doesn't cost less now that they don't include a charger. If you are a first time buyer it costs more. The only people that save money is apple. Apple watches come with chargers. My MacBook came with one. The $1000 plus phone should come with one. I shouldn't have to buy something that's needed to turn in on. Especially since the cable Is $20. If they cared about the environment they would allow you to exchange them for free or at cost.
But if you already have fridge you can just reuse the existing cable, think of all the environmental savings of not including that plug! /s
Could consider these things options to add when checking out, Color, GB, Wifi/LTE, Apple Care, Add a Case, Add a Cord, Add a Brick ...
Would be kinder to the environment if less of these things are at the bottom of the ocean. Like many people, I have umpteen of these in various drawers at home that are not needed and not even sure what to responsibly do with them.
Would be kinder to the environment if less of these things are at the bottom of the ocean. Like many people, I have umpteen of these in various drawers at home that are not needed and not even sure what to responsibly do with them.
And you just know that Apple was informed about the consumer law violation when this change was in the cost analysis stage, but Apple decided to risk any fines.
So you would prefer that Apple includes the charger and then raise the price instead? Or is Apple somehow supposed to keep YoY costs from increasing somehow? Or that they should just eat the cost increases because they can?
Economy class seats have shrunk because consumers complain about fare prices. So airlines cram in more seats to offset the costs because consumers want lower fares. Businesses exist to make money. If you don't like capitalism, you're welcome to try and change to another system.
You wouldn't have been SOL, you would have just bought a charger, either from Apple or from another brand. But you had a compatible charger already and didn't need another one.
Of course they have teams for each country in which they operate! This is one of the world's largest companies by market cap. I usually defend Apple from egregious legal processes, including patent trolls and overzealous EU bureaucrats, but in this case if the local laws state that a key function of a device cannot be sold separately, then Apple has transgressed local laws. Simple. The law is the law. You want to operate in Brazil? Follow the law there, not your vision of how the law should be. It is arrogance to apply a non-Brazilian perspective on the Brazilian marketplace.