Brazil Fines Apple $19 Million for Continuing to Sell iPhones Without Charger

[darngooddesign]

This is faux outrage is about the best I've seen. In many areas one can pickup a charger from almost any place. Maybe if you live on Pitcairn Island you would have trouble getting a charger, but then you may have trouble with electricity. If you are new to electronic gadgets and one of the few that doesn't have a cable, charger and presumes no computer than yeah, you have to buy a charger.

Otherwise just use one from one the many in the junk draw.

No other country is going to follow suit because it's environmentally not a sound proposition.

None of that matters.

The issue is that Apple is ignoring established Brazilian consumer law. Apple could have come up with method of satisfying their established law, a law they were aware of, while still achieving the environmental benefits of not putting chargers in the iPhone boxes.

 

[webkit]

However...

A. They use a standard, inexpensive, removable battery size that you can buy fully charged and add. Are you suggesting that iPhones be powered by removable AA batteries? Can you go down to the corner store and buy a fully charged iPhone battery you can easily put in it?

What I'm saying is that the argument that a charger should be included simply because it is required to power the device is weak as batteries needed to power devices have often been excluded for ages.

B. They cost significantly less than even the base iPhone.

So? Batteries can also be quite inexpensive but that still doesn't mean they or a charger should absolutely be included with the device. Again, it's pretty easy and inexpensive to buy a charger for an iPhone if someone needs one. It can be just as easy as buying a screen protector, case, etc. and potentially even cheaper.

If one of Apple's motivations here is "environmental", why would they include something that may only go to waste given that many of their customers already have one?

 

[iBreatheApple]

Yeah… Remember how you saved the planet, Apple, by not including them, and then immediately changing to a USB-C cable, so we can’t use any of them?

 

[ilikewhey]

Do you actually need another charger?

yes i do, since apple ship the iphone with usbc now none of my old 5w usba apple charger is compatible.

 

[I7guy]

None of that matters.

The issue is that Apple is ignoring established Brazilian consumer law. Apple could have come up with method of satisfying their established law, a law they were aware of, while still achieving the environmental benefits of not putting chargers in the iPhone boxes.

No Apple isn't ignoring anything. They have filed an appeal, which is not the same as ignoring. They may lose and then they will have to decide how to handle it within the parameters of the ruling.

 

[I7guy]

@ilikewhey Actually you need another cable. I can recommend some mfi quality cables if needed. A cable can be picked up for less than a charger.

 

[gregmancuso]

A car does not come wrapped in a box without any text pointing that there is no charger inside.

I luckily don’t own a e-car, but the last fueled car i bought had a sentence in the contract that i need to fill-up and what’s already inside just last 15km.

And thats the problem with iPhones, you buy a Blackbox without any notice that an additional charger is needed, then yes it’s incomplete.

There is a "What's in the Box" section on the web page. When you buy online the checkout process offers the option to add a charger if you need one. If you buy in a store I fairly confident that every sales person would ensure you know there is no charger in the box and offer to sell you one.

I do not see a black box or any lack of indication that a charger is not included.

And as to the car - Tesla just quietly stopped including the 110v charger in the car and made it a $400 option. Granted few people use that charger for day-to-day use but it's lack means that you now have no out-of-the box mechanism to drive your car more than 300 miles.

 

[AppleFan1998]

The everything is going to need reevaluations in Brazil 😂 Samsung phones without chargers, someone mentioned Big Macs, doors without keys, mugs without lids, pants without belts or straps, bikes without locks, TVs without RGB cables, new wallet without money…😂

 

[gregmancuso]

So in some places (Europe) all manufacturers have to have a usb-c connector (in a few years) for chargers to be interchangeable and not included in order to save on e-waste while in others the charger has to be included...
The solution is simple though: since they already sell chargers separately it can't be hard to bundle the phone with a charger in the point of sale, can it?

As I understand it, Europe's requirement is USB-C on the device. There is no rule that states the charger has to be USB-C. Or that the cable has to be USB-C <--> USB-C. Or even that they cannot include a wall wart cord combo so long as the device end is USB-C.

This ruling really has nothing to do with standardizing chargers or making them any more interchangeable.

 

[I7guy]

A car does not come wrapped in a box without any text pointing that there is no charger inside.

I luckily don’t own a e-car, but the last fueled car i bought had a sentence in the contract that i need to fill-up and what’s already inside just last 15km.

And thats the problem with iPhones, you buy a Blackbox without any notice that an additional charger is needed, then yes it’s incomplete.

Yep, my sons Tesla had enough of a charge to drive it home from the dealer, but he had to spend $$$ to charge the car as it had no out of the box way to even plug it in to a 110v outlet. If one spends $60000 on an EV the least that could happen is a way to plug it into an outlet without spending extra dollars. Oh wait....

 

[Juicy Box]

If this discussion were happening in 2007 I would agree. However in 2022 I believe Apple is being genuine that chargers are a prevalent part of the consumer landscape.

Two things with this, while the above might be true....

It isn't a valid reason to not offer them to people that need and want them (assuming it is an environmental concern and not a way to pad the margin).

and

Apple's USB-C charger has not been around since 2007 and not nearly as widespread as the USB-A.

 

[strongy]

Wait. You actually go to McDonald's for burgers? Are you in one of those sad and lonely places that don't have In-n-Out? I feel so sad for you.

;-)

You mean a place that doesn’t exist outside of the USA 🤷‍♂️

 

[Camiri]

This fits the pattern in Brazil. They also legislated that intercontinental flights must have two suitcases included in the ticket for free, again to safeguard the consumer and ensure high costs for all.

 

[strongy]

$19M is a chump change? It is NOT a chump change to ANYONE, including Apple. Plus, this will not be an one-time fine, either. If Apple continues to disavow, Brazil will continue to levy fines against Apple, and the fine will continue to increase. Compounding amount of fines will become a no small matter, sooner than later.

Plus, what kinda arrogance is it when a country imposes certain law, Apple continues to breach it, and you guys continue to become their apologists? No matter who it is, law is a law regardless of feasibility, and this is for a good will (from Brazilian perspective) to protect consumers. Apple needs to oblige.

EU are going the opposite direction to Brazil they’ll just have to get use to it 🤷‍♂️

Their ideas are Scrap chargers in packaging, Make all cables the same, reduce eWaste

 

[strongy]

A charging block and a USB-C cable is next.

They already have usb-c cables in the box, eu is planning to scrap chargers in boxes

 

[I7guy]

Two things with this, while the above might be true....

It isn't a valid reason to not offer them to people that need and want them (assuming it is an environmental concern and not a way to pad the margin).

Apple does offer a charger, just not in the box. Nor is one restricted from only buying an apple charger.

and

Apple's USB-C charger has not been around since 2007 and not nearly as widespread as the USB-A.

Apple made it so the consumer has a choice. You can buy a usb-c charger, or, you can dig a usb-a charger and usb-a to lightning charger out of the junk draw and use that. It is not a good value proposition to manufacturer hundreds of millions of chargers for the minority (imo) who may be new to consumer electronic devices that have rechargeable batteries.

 

[strongy]

If you say “by that logic”, you did not understand that logic. You can use the phone without headphones or macs without final cut, you can’t use your phone without a charger, whatever your intended use is. The logic is you can’t sell a completely unusable device.

Sure you can you plug the phone into any USB port with a cable and it will work 👀 no separate charger needed

 

[darngooddesign]

If one of Apple's motivations here is "environmental", why would they include something that may only go to waste given that many of their customers already have one?

That's why Apple should provide free chargers upon request.

 

[Juicy Box]

Apple does offer a charger, just not in the box. Nor is one restricted from only buying an apple charger.

Apple made it so the consumer has a choice. You can buy a usb-c charger, or, you can dig a usb-a charger and usb-a to lightning charger out of the junk draw and use that. It is not a good value proposition to manufacturer hundreds of millions of chargers for the minority (imo) who may be new to consumer electronic devices that have rechargeable batteries.

I don't disagree with any of this, but if Apple removed the chargers from the box for environmental reasons, then Apple could provide chargers to those buying iPhones and want chargers with the purchase, without charging extra for the chargers.

That way, everyone gets want they want without paying extra.

Basically, Apple didn't do it for environmental reasons, imo.

 

[svenmany]

It seems one solution is to represent the sale differently. Apple could say "This phone will be shipped with a charger. If you don't want a charger we'll reduce the price by ..."

 

[Juicy Box]

That's why Apple should provide free chargers upon request.

Yes, and no one has made a good argument explaining why Apple wouldn't do this if it Apple removed the chargers for environmental reasons.

 

[Juicy Box]

It seems one solution is to represent the sale differently. Apple could say "This phone will be shipped with a charger. If you don't want a charger we'll reduce the price by ..."

That would have been a much better way to do it.

 

[strongy]

I agree to an extent, but a first- time iphone buyer shouldn't have to stump up for a charger to make the product useable.

If someone has an iPhone they probably have a usb port they can charge it with. 👀

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple's argument that "most people have a charger" is spot on. Everything said above is not relevant.

iPhones use a proprietary charging connector.
Most people don‘t have or use iPhones (or other USB-C powered devices, especially in Brazil).
Hence most people don‘t have an appropriate charger.

When you buy electronics, say a flat screen, does the box say TV does not come with an OLED panel. Or are the relevant attributes of the product listed. Yes, in some cases, "batteries not included" is on the box...but most consumer oriented products list what is inside, not what is NOT inside.

Whether it’s OLED or TFT, TVs come in a usable state. As a „complete product“, with a power cable included in the box - as a normal customer would expect Just as most other consumer electronics (Does that mean that they include every kind of HDMI cable, SCART or composite cable? No. But again, customers have a very clear expectation of the product). iPhones don‘t.

box says "iPhone and USB-C to Lighting Cable included. Power adapter and headphones sold separately".

In (very) fine print, I suppose?

 

[darngooddesign]

No Apple isn't ignoring anything. They have filed an appeal, which is not the same as ignoring. They may lose and then they will have to decide how to handle it within the parameters of the ruling.

Unless you are suggesting that Apple employs mediocre lawyers they were aware of Brazilian consumer law when they made the decision to exclude chargers in Brazil's.

So they ignored Brazilian law then, and they are filing an appeal because they want to keep ignoring Brazilian law.