I'm fairly certain the parent was being sarcastic. I completely agree, if it was about the planet and not just saving money on their BoM they could (should?) at a minimum have included a discount voucher for a USB-C charger.
Can you explain this? I don't understand the reasoning. Surely it's better for the planet to manufacture less USB-C chargers? Especially assuming that people/families likely have them already (from iPhones or other devices they've bought before)
Sure, it's better for the planet to have less USB C chargers in some abstract sense. To accomplish that goal, Apple could have included lightning-USB A charger cables, which everyone has a brick for. Instead, lightning-USB C. Either USB-C chargers are better than USB-A (and in several respects, sure) and the planet should have more of them, or just provide USB-A compatible charging.
This choice was dumb even if their expressed environmental intent is authentic and it wasn't a marginal revenue grab.
My only Apple USB-C device beside my new iPhone 12 Pro Max is my MacBook Pro, so at least now I’m forced to get quick charge times with the 87W brick that looks absolutely ridiculous charging my phone.
Yeah. My only USB-C device is my employer MBP I got two weeks ago. I've never owned a USB-C device. It's pretty laughable that Apple thinks there are enough USB-C bricks in the world when first-world tech workers largely don't have USB-C bricks/devices.
Is this still really the case? My Pixel 3 is USB-C, as was my 1st gen pixel. The Nintendo switch is USB-C as is the pro controller. Heck even my vape pen is USB-C charging now.
I feel like USB-C has proliferated sufficiently. Not denying your perspective, just offering an alternate one.
If it was about the environment they wouldn't have included a charger either, yes. (They wouldn't sell disposable in-ear headphones either. No exchanging batteries) But if it wasn't about money, they would've added a coupon/code to buy a charger because the product is useless without one...
Just because the actual action can also be spun in q environmental friendly way doesn't mean the company actually did it for that.
They didn't want to include a charger and just used the environment as an excuse so they can argue all criticism away
Sorry, I didn’t see your reply until now. I didn’t make my point very well, but essentially I believe that Apple has found a positive spin for the fact that they decided to reduce their input costs by removing the bundled charger. They did that at the same time that they - first the first time ever - included a USB-C to Lightning cable.
If it were about saving the planet and not just reducing costs they could have included a discount voucher to allow anyone buying an iPhone who genuinely needs a charger to get one without incurring an extra expense.
Ultimately it is a good thing if we reduce the number of unused chargers being manufactured, but right now I suspect many iPhone 12 buyers had to buy a new charger anyways and wound up paying extra for it. In that case it’s rather cynical of Apple to pass it off as being for the environment when the benefits accrue to them.
Why would making chargers available for free be better for the planet? If people need a charger they can buy one. Offering one for free does not help, and in fact may be worse since that can only increase the number of chargers shipped.
As far as I can see, they stopped including chargers partly because of EU pressure (new law?) that mobile phones should be sold without chargers in order to reduce e-waste because everyone already have a box-load of these at homes. Hence also the push to standardize so that any charger works with any device.
Of course, commercially this allows manufacturers to potentially cut costs while keeping the price of phones the same... But why not, nothing wrong with that.
From an environmental point of view, making people specifically pay for chargers is the best way to make sure they only get the number of chargers they actually need, which fulfils the aim of reducing e-waste.