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.
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.
Yes, this is what happened on the iPhone 13 (may have been 12).
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.
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?
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.
It started with the 11, but only for the Pro models. 12 everything was USB-C.
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.
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."
"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.
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?