I suppose, but it just seems like a very small amount of extra profit to chase. I'm assuming they expected everyone to go buy the official Apple charger, but I personally wouldn't even think of doing that when there are much cheaper charging bricks available at Target or Walmart.
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 Ordered to Stop Selling iPhones Without Charger in Brazil [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To expand the analogy - you order a cheeseburger, it's not advertised that the bun and cheese are separate and costs extra, and when you get to your table with the closed cheeseburger container, you open and see it's a bare burger and have to go back up to the counter and pay again for the bun and cheese separately.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
It's really not. Sorry, but that is all marketing talk. I knew it since day one. A charger is essential to an iPhone or any smartphone.
I can guarantee this will not be a problem here in Brazil, considering most people buy from eBay-like websites, which pay less import taxes and mitigate the already EXPENSIVE prices. Unless all of them are banned, which is unlikely. If you buy anything from Apple's website you pay a lot more...
(Not that newer smartphones are sold like water in the desert anymore, considering BRL has lost 99.9% of its purchasing power over the last decade. The last time I bought something from Apple was back in 2017 when I brought my IPP 10.5 from BHPhotoVideo. Old/used phones are now more popular than ever...
Apple could easily include the charger and cease their BS. It's funny, though, they are forced to do it, because our "Consumer Protection Code" says it's also illegal to combine products and force customers to pay for ALL of them. Like any ISP trying to sell in one package a landline phone + cable + internet, and not allowing them to be chosen individually.
The english translated version of this 1990 code can be read here:
And I can quote exactly where it says this isn't allowed:
Art. 39. Forbidden abusive practices by the products or service provider includes:
I - conditioning product or service delivery to the delivery of another product or service as well as specific quantitative limits without just cause;
The problem is that not providing the charger also violates another article, which I remember what it is, and discovered minutes ago to be the case here, by reading a court case from a customer which sued Apple and won USD 387 (+ 36) in punitive damages.
www.conjur.com.br
This is what article 18, which touches on products (not services), mention:
I know this to be the case because I studied this Consumer Code before, had to file a lawsuit based on it.
(Not that newer smartphones are sold like water in the desert anymore, considering BRL has lost 99.9% of its purchasing power over the last decade. The last time I bought something from Apple was back in 2017 when I brought my IPP 10.5 from BHPhotoVideo. Old/used phones are now more popular than ever...
Apple could easily include the charger and cease their BS. It's funny, though, they are forced to do it, because our "Consumer Protection Code" says it's also illegal to combine products and force customers to pay for ALL of them. Like any ISP trying to sell in one package a landline phone + cable + internet, and not allowing them to be chosen individually.
The english translated version of this 1990 code can be read here:
And I can quote exactly where it says this isn't allowed:
Art. 39. Forbidden abusive practices by the products or service provider includes:
I - conditioning product or service delivery to the delivery of another product or service as well as specific quantitative limits without just cause;
The problem is that not providing the charger also violates another article, which I remember what it is, and discovered minutes ago to be the case here, by reading a court case from a customer which sued Apple and won USD 387 (+ 36) in punitive damages.
Apple terá que indenizar por venda de telefone sem adaptador
O adaptador de tomada é um item essencial ao próprio funcionamento de um telefone celular, tendo em conta a quase universalidade de sua
This is what article 18, which touches on products (not services), mention:
Art. 18. Suppliers of durable or nondurable consumer goods will answer for any quality or quantity deffects that make these goods inadequate for their purpose or that diminish their value, as well as any deffects resulting from the product being different from what is expected, from what is indicated in the packaging, label, or advertisement, taking into account any variations that may be a result of the goods very nature. The consumer has the right to demand substitution of any defective parts.
§ 1. If the problem of the deffect is not solved within 30 days, the consumer may demand one of the following, according to his preference:
I - substitution of the product for another product of the same nature, in perfect condition; II - the immediate return of the money paid, with any monetary adjustments, with no loss due to the eventual losses or damages; III - a discount proportional to the deffect.
§ 2. The involved parties may agree on a reduction or expansion of the time frame mentioned in the previous paragraph, as long as this time frame is not shorter than seven days and not longer than 180 days. In adherence contracts, the clause pertaining to the timeframe must be included separately, through a written declaration from the consumer.
§ 3. Depending on the type of deffect, the consumer may make immediate use of the alternatives in the first paragraph of this article, whenever the substitution of fdeffected parts may compromise the quality or characteristics of the product, diminish the value of the product or when the product is otherwise essential.
§ 4. If the consumer chooses the alternative mentioned in item I in §1 of this article, and if the substitution of the product is not possible, substitution can be made for a product of another type, brand, or model, by complimenting for receiving back any differences in price, without losing the rights set forth by items II and III in § 1 of this article.
§ 6. The following are deemed unfitting for use and consumption:
I - any expired product;
II - products that have deteriorated, been altered, changed, damaged, falsified, corrupted, products that include a type of fraud, that are harmful to life or health, dangerous, or even those that did not abide by manufacturing, distribution or presentation rules;
III – products that, for any reason, may be inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended.
§ 1. If the problem of the deffect is not solved within 30 days, the consumer may demand one of the following, according to his preference:
I - substitution of the product for another product of the same nature, in perfect condition; II - the immediate return of the money paid, with any monetary adjustments, with no loss due to the eventual losses or damages; III - a discount proportional to the deffect.
§ 2. The involved parties may agree on a reduction or expansion of the time frame mentioned in the previous paragraph, as long as this time frame is not shorter than seven days and not longer than 180 days. In adherence contracts, the clause pertaining to the timeframe must be included separately, through a written declaration from the consumer.
§ 3. Depending on the type of deffect, the consumer may make immediate use of the alternatives in the first paragraph of this article, whenever the substitution of fdeffected parts may compromise the quality or characteristics of the product, diminish the value of the product or when the product is otherwise essential.
§ 4. If the consumer chooses the alternative mentioned in item I in §1 of this article, and if the substitution of the product is not possible, substitution can be made for a product of another type, brand, or model, by complimenting for receiving back any differences in price, without losing the rights set forth by items II and III in § 1 of this article.
§ 6. The following are deemed unfitting for use and consumption:
I - any expired product;
II - products that have deteriorated, been altered, changed, damaged, falsified, corrupted, products that include a type of fraud, that are harmful to life or health, dangerous, or even those that did not abide by manufacturing, distribution or presentation rules;
III – products that, for any reason, may be inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended.
I know this to be the case because I studied this Consumer Code before, had to file a lawsuit based on it.
Last edited:
Welcome. How’s life working for apple? 🤣
And that is the main issue. They get rid of accessories without any price drop. They do anything they can to keep the price level, but you are still getting a worse value.Eventually it will just be an iPhone - and cost more for less, all to save the environment.
Good for you, Brazil. Apple's argument is a weak one. Hopefully other countries (U.S. please) will follow suit.
"Incomplete product" is exactly how I felt when receiving my first Apple Watch sans charger, but with a USB C cable that was compatible with nothing I had.
I guess Brazil doesn't care about saving the Brazilian forest
Even if the charger costs Apple a dollar in combined production, packaging and shipping costs, when spread across the hundreds of millions of iPhones Apple sells a year, that does add up. And considering how poor the 5W adapter was at actually charging an iPhone (in terms of time needed), a significant number of people probably never took it out of the box and used a separate, more powerful charger. So by omitting it, Apple did actually save money and did reduce landfill waste - especially with those on the iPhone Upgrade Program where you only return the old iPhone and toss everything else in the garbage (as I am about to do with my iPhone 13 box and Lightning cable when my iPhone 14 arrives).
That being said, Apple can certainly afford an extra billion a year in adapter costs and as others have noted, when handing down or re-selling older iPhones to people who have never had one, not having a charger puts the onus on the receiver to purchase a charger (or requires the owner to purchase a charger to include).
It is not really a very small amount when you consider the millions of iPhones that are sold. Some percentage of those people have to now buy a charger and at a markup.
And on top of that, it costs the same for the meat only as the whole burger used to cost. No cost benefit to the consumer.
The whole environment angle was always a moot point considering they are including a cable that does not even work with the charger supposedly everyone already has at home and therefore they r producing even more waste by including said cable
Yes I thought that too! Good one 😆I guess Brazil doesn't care about saving the Brazilian forest
pretty boring, Timmy want us back to the spaceship…
The funny thing is that Brazil's decision is actually probably better for the environment. Packaging the charger with the phone prevents people from having to go and then buy a separate charger, which comes with its own packaging that will generate far more waste than just packaging it with the phone would have.I guess Brazil doesn't care about saving the Brazilian forest
Next years phone will switch to USB C and ship with the USB C charging cable then 2024 iPhone 16 ships without the charging cable
Its not the lack of charger but the lack of price reduction that its the issue for me. Brazil should consider itself luck they can even buy an iPhone.
As someone else mentioned in another post, they talked about how everyone has an extra USB brick all over the place and then they ship the iPhone with a USB-C to lightning cable. I only have a few USB-C power bricks and since that is the new standard they refuse to adopt with the iPhone, all of mine are currently in use.
That's sort of my thought. Technically Apple did save money and it adds up over millions of devices, but it definitely feels like nickel-and-diming when it comes to saving a couple dollars per phone on the charger. If people are throwing out the 5W bricks for being too slow, my opinion is that they should be including faster bricks with the phones.
Granted, they probably haven't done this because of the opportunity cost of the ability to sell you a faster charger, but most people are buying third party charging bricks anyway.