5 ms·

Or they really did it because most iPhone users already have multiple of them sitting in a stack somewhere in their house and it makes sense to do so?

monksy 6y ago
I mean it helps them lose new first time customers and lose previous customers as well (once you're off the wagon, you're off). I'm all for this.
- cmorgan31 6y ago
  Yeah right, I'm sure the amount of individuals in this category are so negligible to the overall numbers that it might as well be a rounding error. You want to not buy some $1000 phone due to not including $4 in accessories? You weren't the group they were selling to in the first place. We have so many cords around our work stations, sofas, and desks that the industry created and sustained an entirely successful third party market for chargers and cables. Almost all of my wireless chargers and usb hubs for all devices are some form of Amazon reseller or Anker.
- gareim 6y ago
  "That's a weird way to greenwash profit reasons." "I mean it helps them lose new first time customers and lose previous customers as well (once you're off the wagon, you're off). I'm all for this." Pick a narrative and stick to it.
  - monksy 6y ago
    My narrative is that Apple is a market company that'll say anything to make a ridicious profit on their often times subpar technology.
- khazhoux 6y ago
  You're basically talking about customers who have not bought a single USB device before. Is this a large segment?
  - monksy 6y ago
    So the article claims that device uses a proprietary connector (lightning jack) That is not a common USB cable. (Most USB cables were usb micro and are now becoming USB C) Also, it depends on implementation as well. Some devices are compatible and need the quick chargers.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    Or those who bought a phone but traded it in towards the cost of a new one. And the charger went with it, because otherwise you get a lower price...
NicolasGorden 6y ago
If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional? As in, they could include a checkbox (that is unchecked by default) to get these items free in the checkout process. They already ask a million customization questions, why not make this one? I'd also think that for the percentage of people who need the charger/earbuds, having to make a second purchase on amazon will overall increase the carbon footprint for that person, since two packages shipped are way more inefficient than one. This undermines their argument and seems like it makes them depend on externalities to make their ecological calculations work out.
- vkou 6y ago
  > If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional? If the cost were the same, I'd check the box regardless of whether or not I actually needed the cable. If the cost were not the same, we'd be in the same situation where we currently are, where you can, in addition to your phone, buy a wall charger.
- vr46 6y ago
  Optional makes the supply chain worse by having to make two types of box, two production lines. Or by adding them separately you end up with more packaging material and more transport expense. This is a good move for the environment, even it doesn’t feel like it given the vast resources it must take to make the phone anyway.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    I've been involved in the production of physical goods. You are right there's an increase in cost, although then the question becomes by how much. There's the option to make the same packaging but one having an empty space where another has that space filled with these items. Even if they had to make two separate boxes, I'd like to think that given Apple's volume, the additional costs in managing SKUs and packaging production wouldn't have too big of a hit on overall production costs. Especially when offsetting the decrease in cost of goods provided. I however don't know their numbers enough to knowledgeably argue this point. Though overall my point I think still stands regardless of the exact dollar amounts being discussed, I can't see those amounts being too serious an inpact on overall costs.

monksy 6y ago

I mean it helps them lose new first time customers and lose previous customers as well (once you're off the wagon, you're off). I'm all for this.

cmorgan31 6y ago
Yeah right, I'm sure the amount of individuals in this category are so negligible to the overall numbers that it might as well be a rounding error. You want to not buy some $1000 phone due to not including $4 in accessories? You weren't the group they were selling to in the first place. We have so many cords around our work stations, sofas, and desks that the industry created and sustained an entirely successful third party market for chargers and cables. Almost all of my wireless chargers and usb hubs for all devices are some form of Amazon reseller or Anker.
gareim 6y ago
"That's a weird way to greenwash profit reasons." "I mean it helps them lose new first time customers and lose previous customers as well (once you're off the wagon, you're off). I'm all for this." Pick a narrative and stick to it.
- monksy 6y ago
  My narrative is that Apple is a market company that'll say anything to make a ridicious profit on their often times subpar technology.
khazhoux 6y ago
You're basically talking about customers who have not bought a single USB device before. Is this a large segment?
- monksy 6y ago
  So the article claims that device uses a proprietary connector (lightning jack) That is not a common USB cable. (Most USB cables were usb micro and are now becoming USB C) Also, it depends on implementation as well. Some devices are compatible and need the quick chargers.
- dingaling 6y ago
  Or those who bought a phone but traded it in towards the cost of a new one. And the charger went with it, because otherwise you get a lower price...

NicolasGorden 6y ago

If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional? As in, they could include a checkbox (that is unchecked by default) to get these items free in the checkout process. They already ask a million customization questions, why not make this one? I'd also think that for the percentage of people who need the charger/earbuds, having to make a second purchase on amazon will overall increase the carbon footprint for that person, since two packages shipped are way more inefficient than one. This undermines their argument and seems like it makes them depend on externalities to make their ecological calculations work out.

vkou 6y ago
> If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional? If the cost were the same, I'd check the box regardless of whether or not I actually needed the cable. If the cost were not the same, we'd be in the same situation where we currently are, where you can, in addition to your phone, buy a wall charger.
vr46 6y ago
Optional makes the supply chain worse by having to make two types of box, two production lines. Or by adding them separately you end up with more packaging material and more transport expense. This is a good move for the environment, even it doesn’t feel like it given the vast resources it must take to make the phone anyway.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  I've been involved in the production of physical goods. You are right there's an increase in cost, although then the question becomes by how much. There's the option to make the same packaging but one having an empty space where another has that space filled with these items. Even if they had to make two separate boxes, I'd like to think that given Apple's volume, the additional costs in managing SKUs and packaging production wouldn't have too big of a hit on overall production costs. Especially when offsetting the decrease in cost of goods provided. I however don't know their numbers enough to knowledgeably argue this point. Though overall my point I think still stands regardless of the exact dollar amounts being discussed, I can't see those amounts being too serious an inpact on overall costs.