> And all those tangible cost savings thanks to the removal of this accessory... not only have those savings not been passed onto the consumer, but they actuall

> And all those tangible cost savings thanks to the removal of this accessory... not only have those savings not been passed onto the consumer, but they actually increased the price! With all due respect, this isn’t insightful; it’s asinine. The iPhone 12 is a completely new device, yet you’re acting like they took the existing product, removed a piece from the box, and jacked up the price. When planning this new device, the designers were constrained by a cost budget for both the bill of materials and manufacturing. By not including a charging brick, those designers had extra headroom in the budget, and neither you nor I have any idea what this headroom was used for (or to be fair, if it was used at all). They may have had even more extra headroom than the nominal cost of the brick due to increased shipping efficiencies driving down overall costs further. 70% more devices per pallet (if I remember the figures correctly) is no joke! I’d argue the most likely scenario is that if the charging brick had been included, the price would be $10-$20 higher than it is, for a device that many of us already own five or more of and have no use for. Your assertion that they’re simply pocketing the difference is to be frank completely unfounded.