Brazilian judge tells Apple to compensate iPhone customer $1,000 for not including charger...

waclark

Posts: 348   +236
There will still be the same amount of chargers sold... they just have to be bought separately... so the environment will still be despoiled... this is just a way for Apple to make a few more bucks...
Why would there be the same number of chargers sold? I have at least 6 or 7 charging bricks laying around. I won't buy another one, until I require a different cable that can't be used with the chargers. I don't believe the same number of chargers will be sold.
 

waclark

Posts: 348   +236
While this is true, before I clicked the story I thought "this story sounds like another crap lawsuit" then on reading the Judge justification I thought "well clearly the law was well and truly breached here so Apple should have expected this".
Well, I agree Apple should have thought this through but I don't really agree with the Judge's ruling. I mean you buy a toothbrush without toothpaste, should I sue Colgate in Brazil? I could get rich. And even if I accept the argument, $1000 seems awfully high as compensation. Make them provide a charger, this is just BS activism from the bench.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,447   +2,417
True, I may or may not have such a charger. Turns out I do, so, there's that. Also, it's not a given that Apple would include a fast charger in the box, so you may still have to buy a fast charger. It's not like your old charger won't charge the phone, just maybe not quickly.
If the phones have supported it for as long as they have, why would apple include an inferior charger??? Has anyone EVER done that before?
 

0dium

Posts: 314   +373
So many crazy comments. Old chargers? Those which are 1Amp? That would take forever to charge my current phone. You have to change your brick after some time for faster charging
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,277   +828
Not sure I follow the legal logic. The phone also doesn't work if you don't have a service plan, so does Apple have to include one of those in the box too? Come to think of it the power adapter won't be much use without a wall plug to plug it in, so is a house or apartment included? I'm exaggerating for effect, but what is the exact legal definition of what is married to the phone and what is just other stuff that you're expected to provide yourself, and at this point (phone "series 12" remember) why isn't a charger one of them?

What if I buy a drill bit, does it have to come with a drill?
The phone does work fine on WiFi with a free messenging app. It still can install and use smartphone apps. It CANNOT work with ANY feature without being charged. That's ground zero.
 
The amount of naive comparisons in this comment section is hilarious. $1000 is perfectly reasonable for the end user, altough it's a tiny amount compared to what Apple possesses, it is PUNITIVE, which is the whole point of it.
 
Well, I agree Apple should have thought this through but I don't really agree with the Judge's ruling. I mean you buy a toothbrush without toothpaste, should I sue Colgate in Brazil? I could get rich. And even if I accept the argument, $1000 seems awfully high as compensation. Make them provide a charger, this is just BS activism from the bench.
That's not how married selling works. Toothpaste was invented around 400 years after the toothbrush. And although you can find brands selling them together, it was NEVER an universal standard to buy a packet of toothbrush with toothpaste included, which is the contrary to what happened with cellphones.
By the way, even tho it's more efficient to use a toothbrush with toothpaste, you can still use the toothbrush without it (I mean, how do you think they brushed their teeth when toothpaste didn't exist back then?). The toothpaste is an AUXILIARY product meant to be used with a toothbrush. But you can't use a phone without a way to charge it, it just does not work.
 
Last edited: