4 ms·

It's an interesting take, I wonder if the argument hinges on USB-C not having market penetration everywhere. For example I (Canada not Brazil) have mostly USB-A

by belval 5y ago

It's an interesting take, I wonder if the argument hinges on USB-C not having market penetration everywhere. For example I (Canada not Brazil) have mostly USB-A wall chargers, with only one USB-C charger that came with my phone. If Apple had chose to give a USB-C to USB-A cable while not providing a wall charger, would the case still stand?

gwoplock 5y ago
The thing that gets me here is the "exclusive manufacturer". I don't see how that can ever be the case. You aren't required to use Apple's brick or cable (though they have to be certified).
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Apple even presented that stance in court, but they seem to have rejected it because of the USB C plug rather than the older style. They also didn't buy that it reduced waste since they sell it separately. Personally, it would reduce waste for me. I have a ton of those plugs and cables in many combinations. But I could see how some people might not have it yet. Perhaps Apple should have offered it for free for a couple years if you ask for it, rather than include it by default, and maybe they would have been better off here. Edit: I'm wondering if I misread it. Is it a proprietary plug on the charger end of the cord? If so, that makes a little more sense, though there are generics for it for a while now anyhow.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    > They also didn't buy that it reduced waste since they sell it separately. But that's a bizarre take from the judge as well. Obviously the claim isn't that no charger is needed. It's that you need way fewer chargers than devices, so shipping a charger with every device is indeed just waste.
  - gwoplock 5y ago
    > Is it a proprietary plug on the charger end of the cord? If so, that makes a little more sense, though there are generics for it for a while now anyhow Iphones come with a Lightning (proprietary) to USB-C (standard) cable but no USB-C (or any other) brick. So there shouldn't be anything proprietary needed to plug it in.
  - mastercheph 5y ago
    I will help you reduce waste, send me all of your extra plugs and cables and I will pay the shipping.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    There are definitely ways out of this for Apple. Obviously they can go back to including the brick in certain jurisdictions like this. The other good solution, as you say, is to ask the customer if they need one, and offer them something else, like a 10% off coupon, if they reject the charger. Otherwise everyone will simply say "yes" even if they don't need it.
    - wccrawford 5y ago
      I know a lot of people would take one, even if they don't actually want it, just because it's free. But I know there are things like that in the past that I haven't opted into because I realized I really didn't need another one sitting around, or even just didn't need a first one. Oculus' free rubber insert for example. I have a third party one that I like and didn't need the one Oculus offered, so I didn't take them up on it. It'll partially reduce their cost right now and get people used to the idea that it won't be there in the future, instead of this shock where it's just not there, but expected.
Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
It has to do with a law about 'tied sales' where you can't sell something that requires people to buy a second thing in order to for the first thing to work.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Tied sales are about requiring you to buy another of your products only, no? Like if I buy a remote control without batteries included, that's not a tied sale. Is it a tied sale because to get the full fast speed charging it has to be Apple or Apple-licensed in some way because they don't fully support PD? EDIT: > But the judge rejected the argument, saying the cable didn't work with wall adapters lacking a USB-C port, with which the Apple charger was designed. I really don't follow this reasoning. It sounds more like Apple is having some political trouble in Brazil and this is the evolution of it.
  - gwoplock 5y ago
    > I really don't follow this reasoning. It sounds more like Apple is having some political trouble in Brazil and this is the evolution of it. Hadn't thought about that but I think that's the real take here. Since I can't make sense of any other reason they gave.
- changoplatanero 5y ago
  Is one allowed to sell a bicycle in brazil without also selling a pump for the tires?
  - tremon 5y ago
    Only if the nozzles are industry-standard. If you sell a bike with pentalobe-shaped nozzles and only you make such pumps, you must include the pump with the sale.
    - gwoplock 5y ago
      > Only if the nozzles are industry-standard. If you sell a bike with pentalobe-shaped nozzles and only you make such pumps, you must include the pump with the sale But this is more akin to shipping with an adaptor to the standard nozzle but not the pump. And you can buy 3rd party pumps and adaptors with whatever ends you want.

by belval 5y ago

gwoplock 5y ago

The thing that gets me here is the "exclusive manufacturer". I don't see how that can ever be the case. You aren't required to use Apple's brick or cable (though they have to be certified).

wccrawford 5y ago
Apple even presented that stance in court, but they seem to have rejected it because of the USB C plug rather than the older style. They also didn't buy that it reduced waste since they sell it separately. Personally, it would reduce waste for me. I have a ton of those plugs and cables in many combinations. But I could see how some people might not have it yet. Perhaps Apple should have offered it for free for a couple years if you ask for it, rather than include it by default, and maybe they would have been better off here. Edit: I'm wondering if I misread it. Is it a proprietary plug on the charger end of the cord? If so, that makes a little more sense, though there are generics for it for a while now anyhow.
- jsnell 5y ago
  > They also didn't buy that it reduced waste since they sell it separately. But that's a bizarre take from the judge as well. Obviously the claim isn't that no charger is needed. It's that you need way fewer chargers than devices, so shipping a charger with every device is indeed just waste.
- gwoplock 5y ago
  > Is it a proprietary plug on the charger end of the cord? If so, that makes a little more sense, though there are generics for it for a while now anyhow Iphones come with a Lightning (proprietary) to USB-C (standard) cable but no USB-C (or any other) brick. So there shouldn't be anything proprietary needed to plug it in.
- mastercheph 5y ago
  I will help you reduce waste, send me all of your extra plugs and cables and I will pay the shipping.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  There are definitely ways out of this for Apple. Obviously they can go back to including the brick in certain jurisdictions like this. The other good solution, as you say, is to ask the customer if they need one, and offer them something else, like a 10% off coupon, if they reject the charger. Otherwise everyone will simply say "yes" even if they don't need it.
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    I know a lot of people would take one, even if they don't actually want it, just because it's free. But I know there are things like that in the past that I haven't opted into because I realized I really didn't need another one sitting around, or even just didn't need a first one. Oculus' free rubber insert for example. I have a third party one that I like and didn't need the one Oculus offered, so I didn't take them up on it. It'll partially reduce their cost right now and get people used to the idea that it won't be there in the future, instead of this shock where it's just not there, but expected.

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago

It has to do with a law about 'tied sales' where you can't sell something that requires people to buy a second thing in order to for the first thing to work.

vlovich123 5y ago
Tied sales are about requiring you to buy another of your products only, no? Like if I buy a remote control without batteries included, that's not a tied sale. Is it a tied sale because to get the full fast speed charging it has to be Apple or Apple-licensed in some way because they don't fully support PD? EDIT: > But the judge rejected the argument, saying the cable didn't work with wall adapters lacking a USB-C port, with which the Apple charger was designed. I really don't follow this reasoning. It sounds more like Apple is having some political trouble in Brazil and this is the evolution of it.
- gwoplock 5y ago
  > I really don't follow this reasoning. It sounds more like Apple is having some political trouble in Brazil and this is the evolution of it. Hadn't thought about that but I think that's the real take here. Since I can't make sense of any other reason they gave.
changoplatanero 5y ago
Is one allowed to sell a bicycle in brazil without also selling a pump for the tires?
- tremon 5y ago
  Only if the nozzles are industry-standard. If you sell a bike with pentalobe-shaped nozzles and only you make such pumps, you must include the pump with the sale.
  - gwoplock 5y ago
    > Only if the nozzles are industry-standard. If you sell a bike with pentalobe-shaped nozzles and only you make such pumps, you must include the pump with the sale But this is more akin to shipping with an adaptor to the standard nozzle but not the pump. And you can buy 3rd party pumps and adaptors with whatever ends you want.