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

[Greenmeenie]

I’m of two minds about this. I understand the motivation behind not including a charger with the iPhone for environmental reasons. Apple is assuming most iphone buyers already have a charger from their previous iphone. Also, it saves Apple $. I get that. BUT, not EVERYONE has an iphone charger. I‘m sure a sizable chunk of iPhone buyers are either buying their very first iPhone and need a charger, or their previous charger is broken, lost or sold. It really is wrong to force those people to buy a new charger for a device that is already so expensive. At least give them a voucher for a free charger. And for those new iphone buyers who don’t need a charger… deduct the cost of the charger at the point of sale. That way, Apple can help the environment & satisfy customers needs as well.

 

[medazinol]

$19 million is like anyone of us finding a penny under our sofa cushion. Maybe less than a penny

 

[TightLines]

The real reason why Apple is not providing a charger is because they can keep the price the same for the phone, so it looks better for advertising. All of the independent costings (albeit are best guesses) show that the manufacture of the phone has increased. But if you want to pay the extra for inflation, then go for it. Because that could be a legitimate price increase right there with zero comeback.

Perhaps the answer is for Apple to lower its margin/profit for each iPhone? Whats wrong with that idea? They are able to provide the chargers as the courts ordered, keep the prices the same, and still make a huge profit… How much money does Apple make as pure profit per iPhone? Estimates vary, but the reported profit margin is staggering no matter what and who’s estimate you use to calculate… All i have seen is over $600 per phone that is free and clear profit for Apple… just maybe, just maybe they could give the charger back without having to raise their prices, eh?

I think all that are arguing for Apple i this case are forgetting, Apple can afford the best and highest paid legal advice, and the judges haven’t been convinced about their eco arguments or other defenses… and i am sure it was disclosed in the discovery what Apple’s net margins were for each device… it was obviously determined that Apple could easily absorb the additional cost if they so chose to do… they could also continue down their Wall Street greed guided path, and raise the prices… $600+ per phone; just try to wrap your head around that - whew!!! They count on people not being intelligent enough to understand it… Got to love the system, eh?!

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

I mean, using that logic, you can argue that any accessory should be included. Where do you stop? Should a case be included? Headphones? How about Macs that are sold without Final Cut Pro X? I mean, without FCPX you can't do pro-video on the mac!

Apple should be able to sell each item a la carte. Just want the phone? Why pay for a charger too -- need just a charger, why pay for anything other than a charger? Bundling unneeded hardware is just wasteful.

This is just silly...

Today I learned you can use an iPhone without charging it. Seriously, all the troubles you people go to defend Apple lmao.

 

[genovelle]

Yes, since I'm giving my old phone to my wife.

Then buy one.

 

[Sciomar]

My recent toothbrush purchase came with a usb cable and no charger, I know there are more companies doing this now. Governments like Brazil are just showing their high levels of greed while playing ignorant.

 

[The_Gream]

I find myself tired of the comments about Apple dropping the charger from the phone package but not dropping the price of the phone.
Do you people not understand that products have cost - not just in parts but labor and packaging logistics.

Apple removes a $20 charger - which reduced the packaging, which allowed more units to be shipped on the same load. That money saved - yeah part of it probably went into someone’s pocket as a bonus. But the rest of it probably allowed Apple to increase features in the phone which would cost more otherwise. Maybe even allowed them to maybe provide better benefits to their contract workers. There is always a give and take balance in things. Nothing is free.

This Brazilian law probably had good intentions when it was passed, but the times change. Maybe the law needs to be reviewed and updated instead of lobbing fines on a company because they chose to remove one item that most people ether have or can readily get for a fair price instead of jacking the price of the main item up to counter balance the increase of cost (parts, labor, logistics).

I am glad I have spent most of my working life in retail and retail support, so I at least have a decent understanding of how things work in the real world.

 

[xbjllb]

I'm sure this is political as Brazil isn't known for being environmentally-friendly....

 

[amartinez1660]

Well, I guess it’s good news for all of Brazil, those $19M dollars + $2.34M before that at $20 a charger amounts to 1 million 67 thousand chargers. Out of the 14M iPhone users there, 1M of them might get their first charger ever or who knows, a second one… because these fines are used for the intended cause: chargers for everybody that didn’t get one right?
/s

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

O

The charging/data cable is still included with iPhones sold in Brazil, isn't it? If it still is, then at least customers without chargers could still charge their phone by plugging it into the computer, or even the cigarette lighter of their car if they have an adapter.

Of course, there are those who argue that the charger is an integral and necessary part of the phone (it is necessary to charge the device, after all), but for devices that can also charge wirelessly, would Apple then be required to include a Qi wireless charger?

What percentage of the population now has access to a charger? How many people buy their first iPhone and have never owned a single device with a charger, whether tablet, smartphone or any other similar device?

Obviously if they change to wireless charging they will need to include it. Why would you expect otherwise?

 

[genovelle]

The opposite argument could be made. Why am I forced to pay for a charger I don’t need. Contrary to popular belief, nothing is free. Are these politicians going to compensate me for paying for a charger I don’t need. If I were apple I would take the same iphone packaging and duct tape a charger to it charge extra for the the effort and call the Brazil Bundle. It would look as tacky as this ruling.

 

[eclinton]

I mean, using that logic, you can argue that any accessory should be included. Where do you stop? Should a case be included? Headphones? How about Macs that are sold without Final Cut Pro X? I mean, without FCPX you can't do pro-video on the mac!

Apple should be able to sell each item a la carte. Just want the phone? Why pay for a charger too -- need just a charger, why pay for anything other than a charger? Bundling unneeded hardware is just wasteful.

This is just silly...

Except a charger isn't an "accessory", its REQUIRED to use the device. Imagine buying a TV but Samsung didn't include a power cable because... well, you probably have one. It's beyond upsetting. If Apple truly cared about the green aspect of it instead of the financial aspect, they would've offered the charger for free to people who purchased iphones instead of charging for it.

I'm a fan of Apple's products and own far too many of them, but that move was just maddening.

 

[zorinlynx]

The opposite argument could be made. Why am I forced to pay for a charger I don’t need. Contrary to popular belief, nothing is free. Are these politicians going to compensate me for paying for a charger I don’t need. If I were apple I would take the same iphone packaging and duct tape a charger to it charge extra for the the effort and call the Brazil Bundle. It would look as tacky as this ruling.

The problem is Apple stopped including the charger but didn't lower the price. Phone stayed the same price or got more expensive.

 

[Black Tiger]

Apple’s justification on this was always shady. It’s one thing to make a business decision to stop including a charger. It’s a whole other story when they try and spin it like this is somehow “environmental.” Total bs on Apples part.

“Customers can use their old charger” …. But they do it the same year they switch from USB A to USB C cables. So sure. Everyone who isn’t 1% of the customer base is going to have a charger at home that isn’t compatible with the new cable. Great plan. So then people are forced to buy a new charger. Which ships in its own separate packaging. Sure. Very environmental. The only thing “green” going on here are the dollars flying into Apple’s bank account.

 

[B4U]

Not to go off topic but Mcdonald's does charge extra for lettuce 🥬 , tomatoes 🍅 , onions 🧅 , and all. I hate the fact they charge extra 0.50 cents for extra lettuce. It’s mad annoying and irritating.

Maybe someone at Apple got an idea from McDonald’s Chicken Sandwich?

More like charging you for the napkins.
Of course, I can wipe on my shirt...
On second thought, not gonna do that.

 

[svish]

Not much money for Apple. Apple was easily able to pay $5 million a week in Netherlands.

 

[VCTGomes]

I mean, using that logic, you can argue that any accessory should be included. Where do you stop? Should a case be included? Headphones? How about Macs that are sold without Final Cut Pro X? I mean, without FCPX you can't do pro-video on the mac!

Apple should be able to sell each item a la carte. Just want the phone? Why pay for a charger too -- need just a charger, why pay for anything other than a charger? Bundling unneeded hardware is just wasteful.

This is just silly...

That's completely different. You can buy your phone and live with it normally without any case, or do the same with Mac without Final Cut.

But what about the chargers? So you use your phone, the battery discharger and then? You NEED to buy a charger! You can't live without it.

 

[Deadman64]

I mean, using that logic, you can argue that any accessory should be included. Where do you stop? Should a case be included? Headphones? How about Macs that are sold without Final Cut Pro X? I mean, without FCPX you can't do pro-video on the mac!

Apple should be able to sell each item a la carte. Just want the phone? Why pay for a charger too -- need just a charger, why pay for anything other than a charger? Bundling unneeded hardware is just wasteful.

This is just silly...

Poor logic as none of what you listed is needed for the device to work. A better example would be your new mac doesn’t come with a power supply / wall outlet connection. You cool with that?

I personally have enough chargers and apple’s are out of date junk (large/slow charging/overpriced) anyways so I don’t particularly care. But I could see why some people would want one.

 

[bluespark]

Ordinarily, it makes sense to expect a device to come packaged with something essential to making the device work. But at least here in the U.S., nearly everyone who has a phone has had multiple generations of phones at this point, and therefore probably already has a charger (if not many of them). Personally, I have no use for another low-powered charger like the type that would come with a phone. For those of us in that boat, Apple's approach does indeed avoid waste.

Perhaps it's different in Brazil?

 

[CasinoOwl]

From an environmental perspective, Apple is doing the right thing. No government should be dictating things like this. I have a dozen electronic devices that charge by plugging into a usb charger. None of them came with one. By this logic, Brazil is going to need to fine thousands of companies that sell gizmos on Amazon.

 

[gentleman00]

Why not? Because I don’t want another charger. I want to use my Qi Charger that I have already.

Donate the charger to someone who needs it then.

 

[TightLines]

I find myself tired of the comments about Apple dropping the charger from the phone package but not dropping the price of the phone.
Do you people not understand that products have cost - not just in parts but labor and packaging logistics.

Apple removes a $20 charger - which reduced the packaging, which allowed more units to be shipped on the same load. That money saved - yeah part of it probably went into someone’s pocket as a bonus. But the rest of it probably allowed Apple to increase features in the phone which would cost more otherwise. Maybe even allowed them to maybe provide better benefits to their contract workers. There is always a give and take balance in things. Nothing is free.

This Brazilian law probably had good intentions when it was passed, but the times change. Maybe the law needs to be reviewed and updated instead of lobbing fines on a company because they chose to remove one item that most people ether have or can readily get for a fair price instead of jacking the price of the main item up to counter balance the increase of cost (parts, labor, logistics).

I am glad I have spent most of my working life in retail and retail support, so I at least have a decent understanding of how things work in the real world.

Maybe Brazilian politicians and the law makers/enforcers recognize what excessive profits are, and have called out Apple’s bunk relating to their commitment of being a good corporate citizen and the environment? The judges were not convinced despite Apple having the ability to put forth the most expensive and experienced legal minds that speak the primary Brazilian language, so something isn’t right with what Apple is doing down there and how they are conducting business.

Does that understanding you have of the real world include what others around the world think of consumer protection and laws that are designed to protect them from gouging and or other unreasonable business practices? Look around the globe, i think you’ll see the USA is in the minority when it comes to how the consumer is protected from corporate greed and other predatory practices.

Brazil isn‘t the only country that has imposed tough penalties on Apple and has decided to dismiss Apple’s bunk, particularly Apple’s environmental arguments… the E.U. recently ruled about against Apple in the USB-C and Apple Lightning charging port battle. And Apple is getting hammered in the E.U. in other cases - mainly one that has to do with Apple Pay and Anti-Trust… it seems Apple is not the nice and proper corporate citizen they are paying PR firms to propagate throughout the world…

IMHO - Apple is getting what they deserve for letting the Wall Street parasites run the company instead of the creative and innovative groups that made Apple what it is…

 

[FelixDerKater]

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

 

[redpandadev]

I think the solution is pretty simple, if we assume it is about the environment:

All they have to do is implement a “include a charger” / “do not include a charger” selection in the checkout process. In countries like Brazil, make the default selection to include. In other countries, there could be no default, but the choice is mandatory.

If they want money to be involved, they could charge $19 to include it, or discount by $19 to exclude it, whichever way they want to go. If environment is the narrative, it’s probably best to just have it not change the price regardless of choice.

As for backdating to 2020 - they can just create a site where you can request a charger if needed.

 

[Wanted797]

Just put a basket full of chargers on a table and if a person is buying an iPhone and wants one, just grab one. It's not that hard.

I never understood why Apple didn’t just say anyone who wants a 20w could just ask at time of purchase and would be given one.