> 1. The lawsuit started when Apple dropped the chargers coming with the phone, but had just changed the cable connection, so you would need a new charger anyway.

That makes no sense, Lightning was introduced in 2012. And the older Dock Connector chargers had detachable USB cables (I don't remember Apple ever using bonded chargers), so you could have used your existing charger with a new cable.

And an other commenter reports that the judge commented:

> telling Apple that it could help the environment in other ways, such as giving its devices USB-C support.

But Lightning predates USB-C by 2 years. There was no USB-C to switch to when Apple introduced Lightning.

And I can understand and emphasise with immediately switching over from and obsoleting all the "brand new" Lighting-based docks & co.

Apple has started the switch with a few ipads (and obviously all the macs), and I've been expecting the deprecation of Lightning this year or the next, as it's been a decade, which is about how long the Dock Connector existed before the introduction of Lightning (though it survived Lightning for a few years in older devices and developing countries, IIRC Apple stopped selling the last dock connector device around 2015).

> 4. If Apple doesn't give the charger, or sell it really cheap, Brazillians WILL use chinese knockoffs that set themselves on fire, it is just the reality in the country where all tech is crazy expensive.

But how is that Apple's responsibility? And surely they'll do that either way so they can have multiple chargers?

If I remember correctly (I don't own an iPhone so to me this is kind all hearsay) what happened is Apple stopped shipping charges around the time chargers became USB-C, while their older ones used USB-A on the brick.

So the iPhone package would come with the phone itself, and a USBC-lightning cable, but the USB-C brick wasn't included and was ludicrously expensive, and nobody had one since it was new.

Ah that's fair then, that would be an issue. Though it surprises me a touch: my iphone 11 came with an A->lightning cable (I just checked).

Maybe it's that more recently Apple switched the bundled cables from A to C, but didn't provide a charger brick, so people who still only had USB-A chargers were SOL? That would make a lot of sense as well, and I would understand the anger.

> Apple switched the bundled cables from A to C, but didn't provide a charger brick, so people who still only had USB-A chargers were SOL

Yes, this is what happened on the iPhone 13 (may have been 12).

I think that was the first phone where they didn’t include the charger; after a decade+ of including a USB-A charger, that decision was probably fine for avoiding e-waste. Switching to USB-C on the wall side of the cable the next year was very iffy, since users were much, much more likely to need the new charger or an adapter.

If they were really worried about capacity (per shipping container) and reducing e-waste, they’d make the adapter available as an optional add-on at cost — making it free would likely generate more e-waste, since everyone would just go for the free charger.

You could just use your old lightning cable? the port on the phone didn't change, you could use any existing lightning charger and it would work just fine. There's no requirement that you have to use the cable bundled in the box.

> You could just use your old lightning cable?

If you were switching from a Lightning iphone to a Lightning iphone, then yes. But say you were switching from an older Android phone, or a limping iphone still on dock connector?

If you were using an iPhone with a dock connector, hats off for stretching one from 2012 (at best) to 2020, but that's hardly a large enough segment to count. Those things did not even have 4G, so the idea that a significant number of people were using one until 2020 and also decided to upgrade to an iPhone 12 is ridiculous.

Also, if you were using an older Android etc. you are still not required to use the USB-C to lightning cable. You can get a USB-A to lightning cable for cheap, and those aren't as liable to burn down your house as a cheap charge brick.

> Maybe it's that more recently Apple switched the bundled cables from A to C, but didn't provide a charger brick, so people who still only had USB-A chargers were SOL?

It started with the 11, but only for the Pro models. 12 everything was USB-C.

The comment you're replying to makes the point that if you already had a charger, you could use the old charger and the old cable. There is no requirement to use the new cable that it came with. If you agree that people probably already had one from a few years ago, then they already had everything they needed to charge the phone. The 'new cable' did not stop anything from working that previously worked.

That is where point #3 comes in, being that Iphones are/where not very popular in Brazil (due to being prohibitively expensive), it is safe to assume that a significant number of sales are going to be first time Iphone buyers, who don't have a previous lightning cable.

It all comes down to: is the average buyer be reasonable expected to already have that fundamental piece at home? And in Brazilian market the answer to that is a clear no.

I understand you based your answer on OP's comment, but you should not assume everyone has a charger that is compatible with the newer iPhones. And the prices are totally different as well.

There is a regulation in Brazil that determines newly purchased products should come with any components essential to the use of such (expensive, i.e., $1450+ in Brazil) products. In the case of iPhone, this means coming with a charger. Just like you, Apple assumed everyone in Brazil would have an Apple compliant charger sitting around, but the regulation exists exactly to avoid it.

I can see them using to constraint their warranty, so when a problem happens to the phone they would have an excuse not to fix it: "oh, we see here you haven't been using a compliant charger. Warranty voided."

>But how is that Apple's responsibility?

"Apple's responsibility" is determined, in countries with consumer protection laws, by that country's authority. In this case, it's Apple responsibility because Brazil says it's good for their consumers. It does stand to reason that having more high quality chargers from Apple is better than having fewer.

Had no one noticed the racism in this person's comment?

I see only nationalities mentioned in that comment, not races.

Number 4 is what I dont get. Countries should not bother with fining Apple pennies, they should just make it clear that they are liable for the deaths and loss of property caused by their actions.

It's Apple's fault if people use knock-off chargers? (And you can't even argue that Apple wants that...)

Arguably. Selling an unusable device, that is turned into a fire hazard when you type "Iphone charger" into google, amazon, or alibaba in an attempt to get a fully working device has blame to go around but I would not say Apple is blameless. The most damning is really that Apple is the only individual here with an easy and cheap alternative, just sell fully usable devices.

Is the appliance maker responsible for faulty wall sockets? Is the wall socket maker responsible for faulty wiring? Is the toy maker responsible for faulty batteries? The automaker for faulty oil?

This makes no sense. The government should fix their charger regs and prosecute companies who don't comply, if the chargers are causing electrical fires.

No reasonable person expects an iphone to come with a building or breaker, and many are bought by the homeless. An iphone charger is part of a functioning ipohne, a wall socket is not part of any appliance.

The government has little control over what random Chinese devices you order. Countries cannot even prevent people from just mailing cocaine, imagine if every random Chinese electrical device needed to be verified to have been engineered to a certain standard. No counry on earth had 1/100th the border agents necessary to do that.

Apple chargers prices are ludicrous everywhere.

They're also very high quality when compared to cheap Chinese chargers that can electrocute the user, catch fire, or only produce a small fraction of their rated power safely. Are they overpriced when you factor that in?

Here is a cost breakdown: https://www.righto.com/2015/11/macbook-charger-teardown-surp...

They are 8-10x a basic utility of your laptop. That breaks faster then my laptop. I travel a lot, cable generally lasts a year.

Is a man guilty of a crime if he knowingly lets another man climb a cell tower without a safety harness?

Yes, manslaughter.

The question is if Apple knew this was a problem and the degree to which they knew and made excuses or marketing for it.

so basically:

- it wouldn't be a problem if Apple did use USB-C, because "good enough" USB-C chargers are "everywhere" (e.g. come with your laptop, tablet, previous phone, etc.). And aren't too expensive either.

Apple already bundles a USB-C to Lighting cable with the iPhones, so every USB-C charger is already good enough.

They certainly don't do that in the US.

Huh? Every iPhone for sale on Apples site today includes a usb-c to lightning cable. It works with all my usb-c chargers from other companies.

Well, don't I look like an ass. I haven't even pulled the cable out of the box in years, but I just checked the cable in the box from my iPhone 14 Pro and sure enough, it was USB-C to Lightning.

They do, it's written on every iPhone page on apple.com.

My recently-purchased iPhone came with just such a cable. You are confidently incorrect.

USB-C male to Lightning Male though?

The Apple charger I got with my Macbook Air is the only charger with usb-c female I've ever had. USB-A male to Lightning male or USB-C female to Lightning male would probable be better.

Almost all modern chargers utilize USB-C female, at least from the major brands (Anker, Ugreen etc.)

Almost all cables have either USB-C male to USB-C male, or USB-C male to something else.

Yet I have a variety of usb-c chargers which are not like this, that have a male end only. They are for phones for laptops, for my Switch, for a variety of things.

Can you post a link to any of those products?

A USB charger that is male would be so unusual, I can't even imagine what it would physically look like.

Do you have a nintendo switch? The one that comes with it is like that - https://store.nintendo.com.au/au/nintendo-switch-ac-adapter....

See also Lenovo laptop chargers - https://www.lenovo.com/au/en/p/accessories-and-software/char...

I have a bunch of things like this around the house. I'm not trying to deny the existence of usb-c female power adapters, but IMHO they are a more recent phenomenon than usb-a female power adapters, and the male-ended usb-c power adapters that ship with many devices.

I'm not trying to justify whatever's going on in Brazil, but usb-c female to lightning or usb-a male to lightning would be generally easier to accomodate, for me. I also have (for instance) usb-a female sockets in the car.

Oh, I see what you mean now.

Those are chargers that have an integrated cable that of course ends in male.

I really didn't know those still existed. It seems like such atrocious design -- the vast, vast majority of consumer electronics has moved to separating the charger and cable when using USB, precisely so you can reuse chargers and replace worn cables. I'm pretty shocked Nintendo and Lenovo are so backwards on this. Is there really a significant cost savings or something for them? It's so user-hostile.

I have a charger like that, I bought it when USB C cables were extremely expensive. So buying a charger with an integrated cable saved me a lot of money.

I do have a lot of chargers with the female port right on them, but they’re all A ports

Both Lenovo and Nintendo did that initially because in the relatively early days of USB-C there had been quite a bunch of incorrectly produced USB-C cables on Amazone which kill your device.

Through it is without question pretty user hostile that they haven't updated their design wrt. this aspect in recent years.

Yes, like almost every cable, male to male. Also almost every USB-C charger is female.

But it’s not though, most laptops and most phones seem to have come with a usb-c male connector for years.

USB-C is just now starting to be popular in Brasil. Most notebooks here use proprietary chargers.

USB-C notebooks are still very expensive here. I just brought a new Dell Inspiron. IT have greate specs but still uses the old dell charger.

Would a toy manufacturer be sued in Brazil for selling toys without batteries?

What if they required some “expensive” proprietary battery that was sold separately? (Power tools do this in the US)

For me, this lawsuit only makes sense if they misled the public into believing there would be a cable included. Likely, it was very clear about was actually included and people just didn’t read it or care enough (already deciding they’d buy a knock-off). I remember this moment in time and it was pretty well known in the US from my recollection. Even my non-tech friends knew about it and were kind of upset that it would cost them more and all their existing cables and accessories would be obsolete.

Let me fix that for you: > Would a toy manufacturer be sued in Brazil for selling toys without a charging cable?

The answer is: Yes.

Ok TIL. But still makes no sense to me if they informed you about what was in the box. I’m just stuck in that mental model I suppose.

Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

> Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

I mean, it seems pretty easy to distinguish between those two to me? One set are consumables ("batteries for toys", "fuel for cars"), while the other set are long-lived goods ("charging cables").

But why should one be included and the others can be excluded, the fact the cable was available for purchase should have been enough.

The law has to draw a line somewhere. Cars have to come with wheels, even if wheels are available for purchase. Appliances have to come with power cable, even if wires are available for purchase.

To add it further. If it required some cable that could be considered standard enough so people can buy it anywhere from anyone, then the answer would be "no".

AFAIK, technically nobody ever deemed any cable standard enough. I am confident (but IANAL) you would win the suit if you require a USB A to USB C cable, but you will probably get sued.

I own a number of power tools, I've never seen one come without a necessary component for basic operation. Maybe you can link to some brands that bare costs similar to an iPhone that are sold without basic components.

The problem is that you can't compare the US to other countries in this way. The salaries and what people take home are drastically different. Even inside the US, if anyone bothered to look, you'd probably find that most US citizens outside of wealthy areas give something up to get the next iPhone. Adding the charger on top of that likely has impact, just less so than a place like Brazil.

Search “tool only” and you’ll find tons of power tools with no batteries. You have to own their batteries already. For example, I own about 20 dewalt tools and only 3 batteries. When I buy a new tool, it’s usually cheaper for me to buy dewalt because I have the batteries. Most manufacturers do this, or the common ones you’ll find in big box retail. I’m not sure if it’s US only thing though.

I don’t buy the wealth/income factor. A company prices their products and if you can’t afford it, you shouldn’t buy it. That’s a pretty universal concept.

>I own a number of power tools, I've never seen one come without a necessary component for basic operation.

it's very common for power tools to be sold "body only", i.e. without a battery or charger

To add to this clarification, the reason is that the power tools from one company typically have interchangeable battery packs, therefore if you have purchased a few full sets with battery and charger, often you do not need more, therefore tools can be purchased "body only".

Here is an example: https://www.homedepot.com/p/RYOBI-ONE-HP-18V-Brushless-Cordl...

Edit: GP asked for link to tool that costs similar to an iPhone that is body only, here's one priced at $2500: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Makita-18V-LXT-Lithium-Ion-Cordl...

Thanks for the link!

So, I own some Makita equipment. There's a big difference in what Makita is doing and what Apple is doing. Makita sells a baseline product with no battery for the reasons you mentioned at $2500, they sell a bundle with two 5 Ah batteries and a charger for an extra $100, and you can buy batteries and a charger separately for significantly more: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Makita-18V-LXT-Lithium-Ion-High-... (This is one battery with less amp hours)

Apple lets you buy the phone and charger separately; there is no bundle.

I asked for links. I've never bought something like a drill or battery operated saw that didn't come with a battery. Did they come with drill bits or a blade? Not always, but I think a customer can expect a battery and a way to charge it.

You can usually buy it both ways, with or without the batteries.

You can buy most cordless power tools “bare”, without battery+charger. Because those are a significant portion of the cost and if you already have several tools in that family, you probably don’t want to pay for another battery. (Or charger…. I admit to having a couple duplicate chargers, which bugs me.)

Exactly because you do not know anything that you should refrain from basing your opinions by using only your own context of living.

Except this whole thread is about trying to understand this lawsuit, which requires comparing the different contexts (Brazilian and not)

> What if they required some “expensive” proprietary battery that was sold separately?

Yes, in that case they would be sued.

> Brazillians WILL use chinese knockoffs that set themselves on fire, it is just the reality in the country where all tech is crazy expensive.

It would be a pretty interesting law: Supposing it were wealthy enough, what if the government gave everyone an iPhone?

It could have so many positive effects.

We have a Brazilian Au Pair, who told me that she was waiting until she came up here to the states to buy a new phone. I thought that getting a new iPhone in Brazil might be more affordable. Turns out I was wrong. The iPhone list price was somewhere around 180% as in the US. I was shocked.

This is true in various countries. Relatives have asked me to buy electronics in the US when traveling to see them because of high import taxes.

Pakistan gets around this by charging you a ridiculous (I think 40%) amount of the MRSP in tax when you first connect your phone to mobile networks.

I used to buy my parents phones from the US but they have to get chinese phones with low MRSP now to not get gouged out.

Brazil is by far the highest, there's no comparison. Electronics in Brazil cost roughly double. Other places are 20 or 40% more, not 100% more.

Note bringing in goods like this, without declaring them at customs and paying due taxes, is often illegal.

The rules differ between countries, and so does the chance of being caught.

Yes, Brazil has very high import duties on all electronics. Maybe they were hoping to promote local production, like what happened with the auto industry in the 50s and 60s there where major car manufacturers opened production plants in Brazil.

It did work out to some extent in the 80s, with TV manufacturers moving to the Free Trade Zone of Manaus but didn't translate with the high tech stuff afterwards

I'd wager to say that worldwide, America is still the cheapest place to buy a new iPhone.

> Apple products in Brazil are in general expensive, people do not replace their iPhones every generation

“People” everywhere else do not replace their iPhones every generation either.

What about all these Ads on YT from ATT/T-Mobile/etc. offering to update our phones "for free"? You may not do it, but many more do.

What about them? Businesses run ads all the time, and obviously iPhones are not free. People can see that prices for mobile network access with offers of “free” phones are much higher than without “free” phones.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/08/apple-iphone-replacement-cyc...

> Sacconaghi says he expects 16 percent of Apple’s installed base — 900 million iPhones — will buy a new iPhone in fiscal 2019.

> Our customers are holding on to their older iPhones a bit longer than in the past,” Cook said

> He wrote, “In our view, the single most important controversy surrounding Apple today is the iPhone replacement cycle - despite the iPhone installed base growing +9% last year, we now expect units to be down -19% in fiscal 2019, implying a material pushout in upgrade rates.”

> Apple recently stopped disclosing how many iPhone units it sells each quarter. Instead, in its fiscal Q1 earnings report, Apple started to report an iPhone installed base that includes both new and used iPhones.