No. It’s a civil judgement, based on subjectivity which is being appealed. If this were law, it would apply to all manufacturers who sell items without necessary accessories. But it’s not. It is clearly, anything but clear.
spouting the same thing over and over does not change the fact that Apple is appealing the judgement and until that is decided on they are not doing anything wrong.
Criticise all you want. Just be prepared to back up what you’re saying. If what you’re saying isn’t true, then be prepared to be criticised as well. Such as this breaching the law nonsense.
Lol, There are always manufactured defects. Anecdotally since this is the conversation I have my lightning cable in good working order from my 5s in 2013. But you’re welcome to refute that with objectivity evidence that shows a lightning cable has an absolute life of x years.
I think the fine is irrelevant, as they’d spend that in laundry costs on the lawyers. It’s the judgement that they believe was made in error. Note that very many judgements are appealed with success.
And lets get on to this law. What law have they violated? Notwithstanding the appeal. What law are they charged with? Your claim is false, wrong, unfounded, and fictitious.
Lol, There are always manufactured defects. Anecdotally since this is the conversation I have my lightning cable in good working order from my 5s in 2013. But you’re welcome to refute that with objectivity evidence that shows a lightning cable has an absolute life of x years.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, lightning cables, particularly from Apple have been known to fail due to wear. I have some old cables in absolute 'as new' condition, still in their original spirals. And the fact that I have at least 3 unused cables means that they probably don’t need to be supplying them. I have also thrown out probably 5 or 6 Apple cables, about 2 or 3 third party and probably have about 8-10 non Apple ones that are in perfect order that are all third party.
There can never be objective evidence that any cable has an absolute life, which you know, but there is objective and absolute evidence that lightning cables have failed prematurely compared to (particularly) braided cables.
Just like with many items that are subject to wear and tear that doesn’t mean that cables can’t last. But I understand you can’t provide any objective evidence.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, lightning cables, particularly from Apple have been known to fail due to wear. I have some old cables in absolute 'as new' condition, still in their original spirals. And the fact that I have at least 3 unused cables means that they probably don’t need to be supplying them. I have also thrown out probably 5 or 6 Apple cables, about 2 or 3 third party and probably have about 8-10 non Apple ones that are in perfect order that are all third party.
There can never be objective evidence that any cable has an absolute life, which you know, but there is objective and absolute evidence that lightning cables have failed prematurely compared to (particularly) braided cables.
While I don’t dispute that cables fail, chargers fail and phones fail, I’m disputing the contention that these cables are somewhat disposable as well as this statement:
and if i buy a new one, that defeats the purpose of apple environmental sensibility.
So here you have it folks, a company willing to forgo and risk $US15 Million Dollars for the sake of what? Yes, if you are selling an electrical product, it should absolutley come with a means to power it up,..no matter the circumstances. If they can risk this much money, why not just up the wages of retail staff across the world?
This is a good example of where the exchange rate issue came into play with Brazil. The Brazilian currency dropped around 28% against the U.S. dollar between the launches of the iPhone 11 and the iPhone 12. That is what was largely behind the BRL price increase and had nothing to do with including or not including chargers.
They have to be made available to all customers which means Apple has to cover the cost of making them available to all customers and would very likely pass that cost to all customers across the board. If something is made available for "free", most customers will take it even if they don't actually need it. The customers will be paying for it whether they want/need it or not. That wouldn't be good for customers.
This is a good example of where the exchange rate issue came into play with Brazil. The Brazilian currency dropped around 28% against the U.S. dollar between the launches of the iPhone 11 and the iPhone 12. That is what was largely behind the BRL price increase and had nothing to do with including or not including chargers.
Just like with many items that are subject to wear and tear that doesn’t mean that cables can’t last. But I understand you can’t provide any objective evidence.
a cable can last, but majority of cables out there doesn't compared to chargers. i probably can't provide any objective evidence since this is such a vague test i doubt any source even bother, on the flip side, you can't exactly provide any objective evidence disproving my statement either..
I made a few posts elsewhere about this, so I am going to resume the logic behind these developments from Brazil.
***************
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.
O adaptador de tomada é um item essencial ao próprio funcionamento de um telefone celular, tendo em conta a quase universalidade de sua
www.conjur.com.br
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.
I know this to be the case because I studied this Consumer Code before, had to file a lawsuit based on it.
*****
Selling any smartphone without an essential part of it is already illegal under BR laws. It's the same as selling an air conditioner (or TV) without a remote control, a car without wheels... The law says if the accessory is essential to said product, which wired headphones ARE NOT, you can't even sell. Period. If Apple disagrees with that, it can appeal or do business elsewhere...
Companies don't have unlimited freedom to do as they please, it's just like planned obsolescence, which they were sued for. Did you know the same Consumer Code which determined that for Apple chargers specify it's illegal to put any product in the market and don't continue to make replacement parts available for as long as the product in question is still being manufactured or imported?
Even when production or importation is halted, the offer of replacement parts must be maintained for a reasonable time period, in the "form of the law". For how long? There's a decree that states this to never be inferior to the product's life expectancy.
If the law is obscure about this, due to not telling us how many * YEARS *, then past court decisions can be used or we may have an individual evaluation of each case. To me, it's not reasonable for a company that earns so much money (since everything they sell is so expensive) to use a lame excuse just to make more profit, considering that if you buy the charger after you get the iPhone, you are shipping it, too, and probably not contributing to "save the planet", which would be the case if they were sold together.
Apple in this case is assuming they are only selling to repeat customers, and this is false. Even if that's the case, you would probably not sell your used phone (after getting the latest-gen) without a charger.
**********
The government makes the laws, the judge decides what is essential or not.
It's even worse when said limitation is hidden or not well advertised and the customer is fooled into thinking otherwise. Also, if there's a problem and the company doesn't know it exists, that does not exempt them from fixing it.
A charger IS essential for using tablets and smartphones, unless you are Raiden and can charge them with your own hands... 🙌
This is what the article says:
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.
§ 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.
If you buy an iPhone, you don't intend to use it for 6-10 hous, see the battery dying, and never touch it anymore.
Meaning it doesn't make ANY sense to sell without a charger.
If Apple doesn't sell them with a headphone, you can still listen to anything you want. Right?
The car without wheels is not a very good example, because you can't order it like a pizza, so a quality issue may be noticed upon inspection. (if not, then you can argue this is a hidden defect).
The TV and air conditioner is the other way around, you can buy them from the internet, and if you can't operate properly without the remote control, it can't be sold.
********
Not all purchases are from Apple's website, where you can probably read some BS about their decision. If someone buys an iPhone from the internet, quickly fetchs a box from the store and is not aware the charger isn't there, it will be fooled because it's not updated on their "eco-policies".
The absence of it is not the same as not including an adapter to use a wired headphone. It's something that without it, you can't use it. Assuming 100% of people that buys a new iPhone already owns an used one or has some charger lying around, it's absurd.
I am sure buying elsewhere (not on Apple's official website in Brazil) was the case and after so many complaints, they were forbidden to continue with this practice. Which is ridiculous, considering you are doing more harm if don't buy all you need in bulk. Isn't the shipping industry responsible for CO2 emissions, too?
***********
Apple's excuse:
They tell you this:
As part of our efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2030, iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 mini do not include a power adapter or EarPods. Included in the box is a USB‑C to Lightning Cable that supports fast charging and is compatible with USB‑C power adapters and computer ports.
We encourage you to re‑use your current USB‑A to Lightning cables, power adapters, and headphones, which are compatible with these iPhone models. But if you need any new Apple power adapters or headphones, they are available for purchase.
The charger is too expensive, so any customer would feel cheated if buying from a local store or eBay-like website and end up not getting one with the iPhone box. The Amazon Kindle charger is sold for US$ 19, while for Apple is priced at US$ 42 (USB-C, 20W).
a cable can last, but majority of cables out there doesn't compared to chargers. i probably can't provide any objective evidence since this is such a vague test i doubt any source even bother, on the flip side, you can't exactly provide any objective evidence disproving my statement either..
A charger is one way to charge a phone. Other ways include:
- usb port on many devices including: laptops, lamps, electrical outlets
- wireless charging devices
- usb ports in cars
-wireless charging in cars
So no, a charger is not essential to charge a phone nor is it the only way. Charging li-ion batteries on many consumer devices is a world-wide standard.
In what world? US? Even on Android side, only a few select of devices that came up with full USB-C charger, mostly high end Androids which isn’t the most selling.
Most midranges, which sell most at 3rd world regions, come with USB-C to A cable, along with USB-A prong to cut cost. So I dont think average joes in 2022 could have unused USB-C bricks just laying around freely.
Umm… where did I say anything about USB-C bricks laying around freely. But re-reading your previous post after your above one I can see now that’s what you were referring to. That wasn’t clear to me before.
My point was the world is moving forward with USB-C as I thought you were saying the opposite.
I like that they leave out the EarPods and charging brick. I can’t comment on why Apple includes a cable still (I don’t know). Frankly I think they should leave that out as well and have nothing in the box but the phone.
I like not paying extra for stuff I already have. If someone else doesn’t already have it then they have the choice to paying extra for it, and I have the choice not to.
You said that the example of buying a car without wheels isn't a great example because you can choose what you want buy when you get that car.
In the same exact same way, you can choose to buy a charger with a phone. If a car doesn't have to come with wheels (by your choice) then why does a phone have to come with a charger (by your choice), as you can buy it when you buy the phone.
medium.com
