If you have math to disprove mine, please present it. Otherwise, no need to reply.
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
I know what a strawman is and I'd be glad to educate you on it: A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".I mean, if THAT is what you think a strawman is, then my assumption is that you don’t know what one is.
A strawman is more like:
Apple: We’re removing the charger because it means we make way fewer chargers and that’s better for the environment.
Strawman: Well WHY do you make phones every year? You should make them every 3 years.
Apple: So, we were talking about the chargers…
I responded that Apple could not sell a new phone every year to be truly environmental (reasonable argument in response to you). You attempted to frame my argument that they should never sell anything (unreasonable argument and one I never suggested).
Either way, I won't be replying anymore as there is no point anymore. Neither of us know Apple's motivation for this change. My opinion is it's 99.9% to save money. Your opinion is (presumably) different. Unless someone has proof one way or another, there's nothing else to discuss.
If you feel you need to get the "last word in" go ahead.
The 100% is no doubt this is costing Apple less. (The one thing nobody knows is if the price of the iphone 12 would have gone up if Apple had included the chargers)
- Apple is saving on boxing
- Apple is saving on labor
- Apple is saving on shipping
- the environment benefits due to less materials, less green house gases
So there is a win-win. I disputed your insults and fuzzy math. You have laid out unproven assumptions and thus came out with an unproven results. Garbage in and garbage out as they say.
If Apple did something like that, there would be people complaining about annoying popups and/or that greedy Apple is being too pushy to get people to buy more of their products.
And this is a reason why the whole "greedy Apple" argument is weak here. We simply don't know what iPhone prices would have been if chargers were still included and therefore no one can really say for sure how greedy (or not) Apple has been by not including them.
There is no debate, this is a net positive for the environment. If people want to hang on to the narrative that apple is greedy so be it. My own viewpoint was this move to eliminate the chargers made sense.
Your viewpoint is worthless because you’re not objective. You defend Apple regardless of what they do, replying to anyone who even slightly dislikes what Apple does. It’s as if you were getting paid by Apple to do so. Or you work at Apple and so must defend your employer.
And your view is worthless because your response is insults.
Anyone who can’t understand that manufacturing less chargers has an overall positive downstream impact on planet earth is being willfully disingenuous.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Well yeah other than all other evidence that they are incredibly greedy.
The cable is not useless if you have the required accessories to accompany it, which many don’t.
Yeah, you can buy a Power Adapter, I’m aware of that.
They should, it’s just that solely users bear its cost. Apple just sells previously free adapters...
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The power brick was never free. It was included in cost of the purchased item.
With 1 billion active iPhones I’m guessing apple thought there was a good possibility customers had a cable and brick to charge the phone. Eliminate the brick save the environment, don’t raise prices. Win-win.
Yeah, it was included, but now the price is the same (or higher) and there’s no adapter.
I agree with what you say regarding Apple’s thought process. It didn’t affect us, we have several spare bricks and cables, but I see how a new customer might be rightly annoyed.
It looks like apple thought that first-timers are just a tiny fraction of iphone owners and so not worth caring about. Just as they seem to have thought that international travelers from the US who buy a local prepaid sim wherever they go are too few to worry about, and blatantly ignored them by releasing iphones without a sim tray in the USA.
The price of manufacturing new phones is higher than the previous generation. It's a possibility the price stayed the same due to the offset of the power brick, less packaging material etc.
I agree about the new customer. Like the headphone jack it's a contentious move where the dust will eventually settle.
So you have no "non-fuzzy" math to dispute anything - got it. Also, no one is "insulting" you - though you keep posting about it all over this page in your fury to defend Apple at all costs (for some unknown reason).
Bottom line: Apple is objectively saving money by not providing a charging brick. This is a fact that no reasonable person could dispute.
Apple could/should provide a full charging solution in the box for every iPhone that is purchased. That's my opinion which cannot be "wrong." I already know you have the opposite opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree on our opinions - no need to reply (but I'm sure you will), I'll be ignoring it.
From Apple's most recent SEC filing including information about aircraft:
"For security and efficiency purposes, Mr. Cook is provided personal security services and is required by the Board to use private aircraft for all business and personal travel."
Is anyone going to dispute not manufacturing 100s of millions of chargers plus packaging, shipping, etc is less expensive than manufacturing 100s of millions of chargers? There is no fuzzy math here. However the affect on the gross margin is unknown. What I stand by is this is a net positive for the environment.
I agree with one part as described above, however as I said the affect on the gross margin is unknown.
Opinions by definition are neither right nor wrong. I don’t care about whether apple provides one in the box or not. I dispute the primary motivation is $$$, and assert is good for the environment and is probably a cost savings in the end as well.
I fully agree that posters can disagree on opinions.
Your prerogative.
Quite what I expected. To assume that the CEO of one of the world's most popular companies could still use regular flights like others is likely unrealistic.
In addition, as I wrote:
I haven’t heard about TC being required to fly anywhere in recent years.
His time airborne is probably close to zero since Covid.
No one ever said Tim was required to fly. The original criticism -which you have repeatedly shown to have misinterpreted- was that whenever he wants to or needs to travel by plane he must use a private plane, just as stated in your quote, and that certainly doesn’t help the environment. And I agree with that criticism. As for the argument on security and efficiency, that’s pure BS. If the president of a country can fly commercial (Lopez Obrador of Mexico), then certainly so can the CEO of any company. Flying private is a luxury and I don’t buy the Apple board’s reasons to make it a requirement.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is disputing that Apple is saving money by not including chargers. The question that still remains unanswered is how much of that savings (if any) is Apple passing on to customers....?
I agree that any flying is bad for the environment. To make that a reason to discredit their achievements in other places however is too simplistic. The 100 or more million not produced and shipped and flown chargers any year will make an impact.
Good point. I'm just guessing that Apple did not get rid of the charging brick purely for altruistic environmental reasons.
He actually traveled much more each year since the policy was enacted in 2017 requiring him to take a private jet everywhere. Flight costs almost doubled or more each year, in fact.
Flight costs in 2018: $93,109
Flight costs in 2019: $294,082 (a 215.85% increase from the prior year)
Flight costs in 2020: $432,564 (a 47.09% increase from the prior year)
Flight costs in 2021: $712,488 (a 64.71% increase from the prior year)
Surprisingly, cost increased in 2020 vs 2019, which means he was traveling even when everyone else was locked down due to the covid pandemic.