Apple Ordered to Stop Selling iPhones Without Charger in Brazil [Updated]

[hans1972]

True, I guess a better example is a non-techy type person goes and buys an iPhone and when they get it home they can't charge it. Hopefully someone will tell them they need the charger, but if they just buy it from a physical store and no one tells them, they cannot charge their phone. There's literally no excuse for that. How anyone can defend that is mind blowing.

If their existing iPhone or iPad users, they can use their current charger and cable.
If they had a recent Android, they might use their Android charger. Or a charger from some other electronic device.

Worst case, they have to buy a cable or a charger. It's not the end of the world. If you're able to buy an iPhone, you're able to buy a charger to.

People are able to cope wit it and I guess fewer than 10 000 people will commit suicide because they come home and can't charge.

 

[hans1972]

So deep down you love it that there is no charger supplied with new iPhones? You applaud the stance Apple are taking, you believe it to be 100% due to their trying to make the planet a better place and you don't bemoan Apple making an increased profit due to this policy? You continue to defend it to the death so I am assuming that you revel in the lack of a charger....

Management at a company can care about a lot things at the same time. They don't care 100% about the environment or 100% about profits. Probably they care about hundreds of things when managing Apple and their priorities varies depending on what they're dealing with.

I wouldn't be surprised if what happened was something like this:

Tim Cook: Apple is now carbon neutral itself, but we have promised the public to become carbon neutral for our entire supply chain by 2030. How can we achieve that?
Team: [Goes to work]
Team: If we don't include chargers with our most popular products, we will save a lot of zinc use and millions of tons of plastic. Our packing can be smaller and we don't need to use so much pulp, thereby reducing our needs for cutting down trees from our forests in Sweden.
Tim Cook: So how much will this cost us?
Team: We'll save money! The weight and size of the products will come down and we'll save on transportation cost.
Tim Cook: But what about those who doesn't have any chargers?
Team: They can still use their old charger and cable, but if they really need one, they can buy an expensive one from us
Tim Cook: Sounds good, but won't this lessen our environmental impact if they buy chargers separately? Team: That's one reason we need to make them so expensive. Only a minority will buy chargers from us over time and we'll make a lot of money on those chargers which we can use to offset the environmental and climate impact.

Tim Cook: Reducing our environmental and carbon footprint and at the same time making more money!? Seems like a no brainer. Let's do it!

 

[hans1972]

Batteries are only built-in and difficult to replace due to waterproofing? Haha. You can replace the SIM so why can the battery not have a cover the same as the SIM tray? I have a waterproof camera and can replace the battery! There is a battery compartment that has a rubber seal on it. The camera is also way more waterproof than an iPhone! There is simply no excuse for not having a simple drop-in battery.

Oh yeah, you'll say that batteries can be replaced and that Apple advertise this facility. Yes they can but it is expensive and people are brainwashed into thinking that their devices are no good a few years down the line. Apple 'updates' will probably have slowed their devices down to a crawl by this point. £70 for a battery replacement?? On a device worth less than £300 by the time you think about having it done the costs begin to scupper the deal. It's a £10 battery folks! Oh and I know that Samsung, SONY etc etc are just as bad. The whole industry is in on this. I understand. Profit. Gotcha. Just don't dare try and tell me that it's to save the planet.

I'm not so sure repairability is better if these designs leads to reduced need for repairs because they work longer. Also repairs requires a lot of energy use: produce part, ship it, tools, the customer driving to repair places, inefficient recycling by third party etc.


Anyhow, it doesn't really matter because any new device bought from Apple, they have to count it into their environmental impact and climate footprint. If they can achieve neutral carbon footprint by 2030 for their entire supply chain and they can achieve that by selling more devices, good for them.

 

[hans1972]

It proves that they don't care about the longevity of their devices and thus the environment. They churn these devices out by the tens of millions and don't future-proof them as best they can. On the contrary, they all have built-in obsolescence.

If they reduce their environmental and climate impact by reducing the numbers of chargers they produce and ship, some of that reduction can be put into covering an increase for more profitable products like iPhone and Macs.

It's not about having zero impact. It's about having enormous amount of revenue and profit and at the same time impact the environment and climate as little as possible.

 

[hans1972]

The fact is that most people do not get new batteries fitted. They get a new phone. If battery replacement was easier and cheaper then they wouldn't necessarily do that would they. Anyway, I've said the same thing enough times now. I don't enjoy giving companies more money and receiving less under the scam of saving the planet.

It certainly is much cheaper than buying a new phone. Apple has pretty cheap prices for replacing batteries.
But sometime Apple's customers are stupid when it comes to how to spend their money wisely.

 

[hans1972]

Disagree. Companies that take an action to save money or increase profits under the guise of environmentalism should be called out. If the environment is improved - then that is a great side effect. The end does not justify the means.

Life is more complex. It's not 100% about saving the environment or 100% about profits.

It could easily have started as a project to reduce Apple's environmental and carbon footprint and it wasn't stopped because it didn't cost a lot of money. In fact, they will make more money.

To me that's count as being motivated by environmental and climate issues.

 

[hans1972]

Well they can’t stop making phones altogether, unfortunately they’re a for profit company. But they could release new phones every 2-3 years instead of every single year. That would substantially reduce the amount of electronic waste. A lot more than just removing the chargers from the box.

But the purpose isn't to reduce environmental impact in isolation.

They want to have an enormous amount of revenue and profit and have as little impact on environment as possible. Often competing goals.

By not including the charger, it helps both of Apple's goals. It's a win-win for them. The only one who are losing are customers who loves chargers.

 

[hans1972]

My thoughts exactly.

For example, my cousin who bought an iPhone was shocked that her charger wouldn’t work… since Apple included a Lightning to USB-C cable. I had an extra USB-C charger to give her and if I didn’t, she would have had to use her old Lightning to USB-A cable that was rather beaten up. And then her Lightning to USB-C cable will be waste.

So it solved itself. You gave away a charger you already had.
This is exactly what Apple is looking for. People coming up with genius methods to avoid buying a charger.

Result: One less charger produced by Apple. Apple wins.

 

[hans1972]

So, we are down to picking the lesser of the two. Instead of just supplying a user with a USB-C charger… because she eventually would then have to buy a USB-C charger for the USB-C cable that came with the iPhone.

And why stop with the iPhone… go for the iPad, the Mac as well.

Apple cares about it in aggregate and over time.

Those users who buys an USB-C charger will be having a bigger immediate impact on the environment, but they can use that charger for the next 1-5 iPhones. So long term, they will have fewer chargers.

And USB-C chargers with PD support can be used to charge iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, Apple Watches, Apple Pencils, Apple TV remotes, Magic Mouses and also third party devices like Android phones and hopefully more and more PCs.

By getting away from the 1:1 relationship between charger and device, we can use one charger for many devices.

My main charger is charging one iPhone, two iPads and an Apple Watch regularly. Sometimes I even use it to charge my two MacBooks.

Even with 7 Apple devices which needs charging, I only have two chargers in my apartment. I'm buying 3 new Apple devices this autumn and only one of them will come with a charger. And even if the MacBook Air came without a charger, I wouldn't buy one since I already have enough chargers.

 

[hans1972]

Aye, I completely understand the move. But to be clueless that Apple profits off the move is what people is bothered by… yes, its for the environment. But they will make a profit off the move and those who are defending it… seems to dismiss that angle.

We all know they'll make more money and it isn't a problem.

But it doesn't mean that the motivation behind it was to save money when they started. It's more likely it came from work being done to solve the problem of Apple becoming carbon neutral for their supply chain by 2030.

By not costing any money, but the opposite, it seems like no-brainer solution for Apple.

I'm pretty sure Apple would have done it if it would have cost them $100 million a year also, but not if the cost was billions of dollars per year.

 

[hans1972]

Offer the charger for 'free' if customers want one. All the climate change wokesters can decline and those who need one can get it.

This isn't about customers but about Apple. It isn't about customers becoming carbon neutral, it's about Apple and their supply chain. It isn't about customers impact on the environment but about Apple's impact.

Apple cares about their impact on the environment and climate since it's good business to care about it when a lot of your customers, employees and shareholders care.

Every time you get something from Apple, you will increase Apple's impact on the environment and climate. They can't rely on your good will to voluntarily say no to a charger, but they do know you care about money. So Apple makes it more expensive for you to buy something from them which has a bad revenue vs environmental impact ratio for Apple.

And I think it's working. You're not getting free chargers from Apple and you're not buying chargers from Apple.

Apple wins.

 

[hans1972]

Worth noting that when the EU suggested that it would be beneficial environmentally for them to switch to the same charging port that pretty much every other modern smartphone in the world uses thus eliminating the need for lightning cables to be produced at all, Apple objected.

It's part of the common charger regulation in EU. The EU cares about the charger when it comes to e-waste, not the ports or the cables.

Under this new EU law it will be illegal to not offer phones and other small electronics without a charger.

 

[hans1972]

So, to sum it up. You would rather a user to continue using their USB-A cable than buy a charging brick. Then why would Apple supply a USB-C cable to begin with.

The best longterm solution is to buy a good USB-C charger with several ports and PD support and use it for the next 10-15 years for a lot of devices.

But some people seems to go into a shock if they need to buy a charger, so using an old USB-A cable and charger is a solution for them. Yes, a worse solution, but still a solution.

 

[hans1972]

Fair question why are they charging so much for the brick aswell?

$20 dollars for a 1 port 20w USB C charging brick!

If it's expensive, less people will buy it which is good for environmental reason.

It's obvious to me why they charge a lot. The products would else have a low ratio of revenue vs environmental impact. They probably still do, but customers still need _some_ chargers.

 

[Abazigal]

So at present, the iPhone, AirPods and Apple Watch don't come with charging bricks.

Almost as if they are begging for users to get one of those 3-in-1 Belkin charging stands.

And voila, that's 3 fewer charging bricks in circulation.

 

[hans1972]

Yes and they can't argue both sides, they either want people to hang on to an old cable or they want to move on to better tech.

Apple wants people to move to USB-C chargers. And they want customers to pay for that move.

The reason Apple includes a cable is a pragmatic one.

Lot's of customers will have USB-C chargers by now.

Cables are more fragile than charger and a lot of people seems to wear them out quite quickly, so they need more cables than chargers. They can re-use their charger since it still working, but a lot more customers will need a cable.

Cables have much less impact on the environment.

So by providing a cable they lessen the irritation from customers and at the sometime Apple's impact on the environment and their carbon footprint isn't great.


It's much easier to understand Apple's behaviour if you're less principled and more pragmatic weighing different goals against each other.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Apple wants people to move to USB-C chargers. And they want customers to pay for that move.

But has waited until government regulation has stepped in to actually put a USB C port on the phone, despite the I/O that is currently on the phone having been technically inferior to USB C in almost every single way for several years and meaning that everybody who owns a modern iPhone with a iPad/Macbook needs two charging cables rather than the one they would need if they shared a common charging port.

You can file Apple's environmental credentials alongside their trope about privacy, it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny and they go out the window when there is a dollar to be made.

 

[Ludatyk]

By not including the charger, it helps both of Apple's goals. It's a win-win for them. The only one who are losing are customers who loves chargers.

Again, I understand… the goals set forth by Apple in this move. It’s the people who are defending the move that’s oblivious to whether or not Apple profits off it.

Apple wants people to move to USB-C chargers. And they want customers to pay for that move.

And we are agreement.

Yet, you portray it as if customers are opening up box primarily for the chargers… they are simple surprised by the fact that no charger comes in the box. Well, in my cousin situation.

 

[Septembersrain]

E-SIM, no chargers, no headphones, what's next? No charger? Apparently Apple has different standards for each country. USA lost another feature. Switching back to Android physical SIM has me without 5G still. The unsuspecting are going to drown these mobile carriers in calls.

 

[Benlurks1010]

The environment lady said that in the keynote two years ago.
If there's 1B iPhone users in the world, it's almost like saying everybody has an adapter.

Very strange reasoning to me. There are so many other factors here…I guess those adapters “out in the world” are never allowed to break or get lost? And people never include the adapters with devices they donate/sell/trade in, despite being strongly encouraged to do so?

I don’t even disagree with the environmental reason for excluding adapters. but every phone sold that way should be required to have a massive warning label, on either the box or the online store page it‘s bought from. Selling an electronic product without a way to power it is not something anyone should be allowed to just do on the sly.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Very strange reasoning to me. There are so many other factors here…I guess those adapters “out in the world” are never allowed to break or get lost? And people never include the adapters with devices they donate/sell/trade in, despite being strongly encouraged to do so?

I don’t even disagree with the environmental reason for excluding adapters. but every phone sold that way should be required to have a massive warning label, on either the box or the online store page it‘s bought from. Selling an electronic product without a way to power it is not something anyone should be allowed to just do on the sly.

Or probably more likely not be compatible with the usb c to lightning cable they now ship with iPhones! The vast majority of that quoted figure must be the old usb A power bricks

 

[webkit]

Offer the charger for 'free' if customers want one. All the climate change wokesters can decline and those who need one can get it.

Offering a charger for free if a customer wants one wouldn't necessarily be a good environmental solution as many, if not most, consumers would still likely choose to get it anyway and therefore would still create unnecessary waste.

 

[webkit]

What they could do is actually design products that are not built to be a difficult to repair as possible and not wage a multi year campaign against the right to repair and third party repair shops, they could where possible embrace standard ports so that consumers don't have to buy as many charging cables rather than sticking with proprietary ones until government regulation forces their hand.

They have lead and the industry both in the PC and mobile device markets have followed to a place where it is the norm to not have replaceable parts or even parts that are repairable by skilled technicians.

If they ever want their environmental credentials to be taken seriously they have got to move away from these practices.

Therefore, if Apple isn't trying to be "environmentally friendly" in every way possible that means any one attempt (like not including chargers) is largely meaningless so why bother? They should've just continued including chargers as they had prior to 2020?

 

[webkit]

I don’t even disagree with the environmental reason for excluding adapters. but every phone sold that way should be required to have a massive warning label, on either the box or the online store page it‘s bought from. Selling an electronic product without a way to power it is not something anyone should be allowed to just do on the sly.

Although perhaps not a "massive warning label", the Apple website does clearly state under "What's in the Box" that a charger is not included: As part of our efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2030, iPhone [[models]] do not include a power adapter or EarPods.

They also give you the option to easily add a charger during the checkout process.

As far as powering electronics, not including a charger is similar in that sense to "batteries not included" which has been common with electronics for ages.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Therefore, if Apple isn't trying to be "environmentally friendly" in every way possible that means any one attempt (like not including chargers) is largely meaningless so why bother? They should've just continued including chargers as they had prior to 2020?

This probably sums it up best