Other 6.5B saved from taking out 2 items from iPhone box.

[Berti10]

Report claims Apple saved $6.5 billion by removing charger and EarPods from iPhone boxes

By one account, Apple saved over $6.5 billion by leaving the charging brick and the EarPods out of the iPhone box starting with iPhone 12.

www.phonearena.com

Has apple become the greediest company in history?

The iPod, outselling the iPhone in 2010, never came with a charger.

 

[JPack]

The iPod, outselling the iPhone in 2010, never came with a charger.

Apple Introduces New iPods

www.apple.com

 

[Berti10]

View attachment 1973124

Apple Introduces New iPods

www.apple.com

Ok, did not know this. The iPod Touch then never came with a charger

 

[Abazigal]

Worse response ever and mostly the reason they get away with being so greedy….fine leave them out but CHARGE LESS…momo’s, then if you need one buy it, amazing how little perception there is today about money

Here’s my take.

The iPhone 12 would have cost more to make compared to previous years, most notably due to the cost of the 5g model. Apple could have either absorbed the cost, passed it on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, or found some way of offsetting the difference.

I feel Apple ultimately went with the solution that represent a win-win for all parties involved. The cost savings from the removal of accessories and the lower shipping fees allowed Apple to continue selling the iPhone at the same price. Consumers save by paying less than what they otherwise would have.

I believe that consumers are largely indifferent to this move as they either already have a charger from a previous phone, or can buy another third party charger. I have been using AirPods and a variety of multi-device chargers for a while now. My iPhone chargers and EarPods have always sat untouched in their original packaging.

There’s also the environmental aspect. Whether you care for it or not, there’s no denying there will be a net positive impact overall.

It is what it is, and life goes on.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Iphones are expensive, so I buy one only when I have to. But then I buy one, not an Android. I bought my SE 1st gen four years ago, almost to the date. Personally, I don't believe that Apple is a greedy company. It maximizes profit like any other company. That is capitalism. I have no problem with that, on the contrary. I support capitalism, albeit The Swedish Style.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

There is no doubt it was done for margin reasons. Why ship an adapter and EarPods when you can make customers buy them for $19 each?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out Apple could have offered redeemable vouchers if they wanted to benefit customers and the environment.

The thing is, from my perspective, even if it was done purely, 100%, inarguably for profit reasons, there are still massive upsides: fewer unnecessary charging bricks produced (as has been noted in this thread, we all have a drawer full of these, my charging needs are more than catered for at this point), fewer cheap headphones produced that barely anyone uses and likely already has a set of anyway, massively reduced packaging leading to more phones per shipment and therefore lower emissions from transporting them to stores and customers...

I just don't really care what Apple's actual motivation was, or how cynical people think that motivation was. It's still a move that has positive effects. In fact, one case you can make for capitalism/the free market being a good thing is that it will eventually drive corporations towards making environmentally positive decisions for profit-based reasons as it becomes less and less tenable to keep up environmentally damaging practices. This is a pretty decent example of that. Cost of fuel rises, so do what you can to use less of it.

And has been pointed out, the price of a phone decreased this year both in real inflationary terms and in actual price terms, so if you *do* want a charging brick or some EarPods, you end up paying the same as you would have done. What's the downside here?

 

[lkalliance]

Here's a great big pharma example of pure greed.

Insulin is over 100 years old now. It's relatively cheap and easy to produce and most civilized countries have price caps on it.

Not so the USA. Prices here have gone for ~$20 a vial in the year 2000 to $340 in 2021 - over a 1,000% increase. To put this in numbers, assume a vial lasts a month, and there being ~2m insulin dependent Americans, that would have brought in $480m in the year 2000, and a shade under $8 billion in 2021. And that's just one single drug.

And the reason? Artificial limitation of availabilty. And that's it. The cost of production has hardly changed, and there's no research costs to recoup.

That is absolute pure profit taking.

You complain about stupid phone chargers and feel hard done to as a result.

Meanwhile people are dying because of this rampant greed.

I just got my 90-day prescription for insulin. As a type 1 diabetic, I am insulin-dependent with no other alternative. I have already met my health insurance’s deductible, but I inquired what the price would be if I had not. $2400. For three months. For a drug I cannot live without, speaking non-metaphorically.

My iPhone is a [expletive] bargain.

 

[ian87w]

MKing something desirable doesn’t make them less greedy only more greedy…wow I really misjudge that some would actually understand this thread bit so far the sheep have turned out only…

Say what you want but this is a very small snapshot of the overall picture I would dare to say most Apple consumers feel the same way but are buying longer cycles but the profit margin is so high they still are on top.

I didn’t say Apple isn’t greedy. It’s obvious why they removed those chargers from the box. I’m just saying the process of buying an iPhone is no longer because you need a phone. For many consumers, it’s about getting the Apple brand.

 

[ian87w]

The thing is, from my perspective, even if it was done purely, 100%, inarguably for profit reasons, there are still massive upsides: fewer unnecessary charging bricks produced (as has been noted in this thread, we all have a drawer full of these, my charging needs are more than catered for at this point), fewer cheap headphones produced that barely anyone uses and likely already has a set of anyway, massively reduced packaging leading to more phones per shipment and therefore lower emissions from transporting them to stores and customers...

I just don't really care what Apple's actual motivation was, or how cynical people think that motivation was. It's still a move that has positive effects. In fact, one case you can make for capitalism/the free market being a good thing is that it will eventually drive corporations towards making environmentally positive decisions for profit-based reasons as it becomes less and less tenable to keep up environmentally damaging practices. This is a pretty decent example of that. Cost of fuel rises, so do what you can to use less of it.

And has been pointed out, the price of a phone decreased this year both in real inflationary terms and in actual price terms, so if you *do* want a charging brick or some EarPods, you end up paying the same as you would have done. What's the downside here?

There's no upside. Why? Because Apple still makes those chargers, pack them individually using more materials, and ship them. Whether they are in your drawer or on the store shelves, they are still being made, and thus a waste. This move only makes sense if Apple stop making them completely, and start recommending people to get 3rd party multi port chargers. That way more people will just have one charger that can charge all their devices. Right now, unknowingly consumer probably buys a charger for their iPhone, then another one for their Apple watch, etc.

Even better, Apple should make their MacBook chargers to have an extra USB-C port. But they don't. Apple wants people to keep buying those chargers.

 

[lkalliance]

There's no upside. Why? Because Apple still makes those chargers, pack them individually using more materials, and ship them. Whether they are in your drawer or on the store shelves, they are still being made, and thus a waste. This move only makes sense if Apple stop making them completely, and start recommending people to get 3rd party multi port chargers. That way more people will just have one charger that can charge all their devices. Right now, unknowingly consumer probably buys a charger for their iPhone, then another one for their Apple watch, etc.

Even better, Apple should make their MacBook chargers to have an extra USB-C port. But they don't. Apple wants people to keep buying those chargers.

I don’t think I agree with this entirely. Apple has decoupled the production of the charger from the iPhone. They used to make more than one charger for every iPhone they made. One came in the box, and you could still buy them individually from Apple. Unless every single person buying an iPhone is also buying a charger, then they’ve got to be making fewer chargers, don’t they? Unless there is something about the manufacturing I don’t understand.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

There's no upside. Why? Because Apple still makes those chargers, pack them individually using more materials, and ship them. Whether they are in your drawer or on the store shelves, they are still being made, and thus a waste. This move only makes sense if Apple stop making them completely, and start recommending people to get 3rd party multi port chargers. That way more people will just have one charger that can charge all their devices. Right now, unknowingly consumer probably buys a charger for their iPhone, then another one for their Apple watch, etc.

Even better, Apple should make their MacBook chargers to have an extra USB-C port. But they don't. Apple wants people to keep buying those chargers.

Sorry, do you seriously think Apple still produces as many charging bricks and EarPods as it makes iPhones and just sits them in a warehouse?

The production runs on those items will be massively reduced compared to when they were boxing them with phones.

And even if Apple was completely insane and just kept manufacturing massive amounts of product it wasn't going to sell, I don't see how that results in "no upside". You've just ignored everything I said about them being able to fit around twice the numbers of phones into each shipment which really reduces carbon footprint.

Don't understand your point about "unknowingly consumer" buying separate chargers, or why you think Apple should encourage people to buy from third parties when it can sell directly to customers. Why not Apple just recommend people buy third party computers as well?

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Unless there is something about the manufacturing I don’t understand.

I think there's something about manufacturing our friend here doesn't understand to be honest.

 

[ian87w]

Sorry, do you seriously think Apple still produces as many charging bricks and EarPods as it makes iPhones and just sits them in a warehouse?

The production runs on those items will be massively reduced compared to when they were boxing them with phones.

And even if Apple was completely insane and just kept manufacturing massive amounts of product it wasn't going to sell, I don't see how that results in "no upside". You've just ignored everything I said about them being able to fit around twice the numbers of phones into each shipment which really reduces carbon footprint.

Don't understand your point about "unknowingly consumer" buying separate chargers, or why you think Apple should encourage people to buy from third parties when it can sell directly to customers. Why not Apple just recommend people buy third party computers as well?

So you agree that Apple would prefer people to keep buying those chargers from them anyway and make more money.

 

[TracerAnalog]

Report claims Apple saved $6.5 billion by removing charger and EarPods from iPhone boxes

By one account, Apple saved over $6.5 billion by leaving the charging brick and the EarPods out of the iPhone box starting with iPhone 12.

www.phonearena.com

Has apple become the greediest company in history?

Newsflash: Apple is a commercial company. Get over it. Don’t like it? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy Apple products. Also: lots of people get too emotional about mega corporations and their products.

 

[lkalliance]

Newsflash: Apple is a commercial company. Get over it. Don’t like it? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy Apple products. Also: lots of people get too emotional about mega corporations and their products.

Agreed, though I think it's fair to point out that there is room to be emotional about mega corporations. Your hot button might be ecology, or wealth distribution of a more global nature. Perhaps you're outraged by Foxconn's working conditions or even for that matter the supposed (via some sources) mistreatment of Apple Store employees. Again, this is very much a vote-with-your-wallet situation.

But "Apple's products are more expensive than they should be"? Then don't buy them. This is a poor rallying point if you want to inspire more criticism of the company. We are all at-will purchasers of an optional item of technology ("optional" is relative, but iPhones--or expensive Galaxys or whatever--specifically could be considered optional as opposed to smart phones in general). We know how expensive they are, and we know what utility or entertainment we get out of them, and we can make that comparison.


EDIT: So I was curious, and I did some math. I've got four iPhone users in the household: me, my wife, my daughter and my stepson. I chose a model to start with, the 5c. That wasn't arbitrary, that was my wife's first model, so the point at which it ceased to become just me. Let's call that 2013. My daughter got her first in 2017, an iPhone 6S, and my stepson in 2020. All told, I estimate 27 person-years of owning iPhones from that point. Over that span, for all four of us, we've combined purchased eight iPhones: two 5c, two SE 2016s, one 6S, one SE 2020, one 12 mini and one 13 mini. That 6S might have been used, I don't remember. And the 12 mini was a combined gift with someone else outside the family, but whatever. Let's say they were all purchased full price, and I'm going to round up to $4000. That makes it just under $150 per person per year. I wasn't sure what I expected, but given everything we do with them, that seems pretty good to me!

(It's also fair to point out that that doesn't count Apple Care, the occasional purchase to replace a worn lightning cable, and iCloud storage. But, still, I think that's really reasonable.)

 

[EmotionalSnow]

Considering all other environmental efforts of theirs, I wouldn't say that their reasoning for this change was purely virtue signalling even though they clearly omitted the influence money had on their decision. Apple doing it because of the money and the environment can both be true at the same time.

 

[lkalliance]

So you agree that Apple would prefer people to keep buying those chargers from them anyway and make more money.

Lol, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I have trouble with in your argument is your suggestion that even though Apple is no longer including chargers in the box, that somehow they are still producing (and selling?) the same number of chargers that they did before that point. I don't understand how you come to that point, nor could the other poster you were quoting. Are we misunderstanding that part of your argument, or is there some more detail you could provide?

 

[Taz Mangus]

If you had taken time to read my posts, you would have seen where I said my cycle is much longer now to combat the greed…you do know what that means right?

Problem solved time to shut down the thread. Good job wasting everyone’s time with this useless thread.

“You angry and you ain’t going to take it no more”.

 

[ignatius345]

Report claims Apple saved $6.5 billion by removing charger and EarPods from iPhone boxes

By one account, Apple saved over $6.5 billion by leaving the charging brick and the EarPods out of the iPhone box starting with iPhone 12.

www.phonearena.com

Has apple become the greediest company in history?

All companies are "greedy." It's written into the way corporations function. They exist to make profit for their shareholders, period. If it helps them make more money to be consumer-friendly, or environmentally conscious, or privacy centered, they'll do those things. But at the end of the day, they're there to make money.

 

[PhillyGuy72]

Not saying Apple is a contributor to a new growing trend called "Shrinkflation" *Apple started this a few years ago to "eco" purposes. (Just sort of reminds me of it)

It's clearly now a trend with many products - " Charmin, Gatoraide, Coke-Cola & Pepsi, cereal, etc. So many others and more are likely to follow. If a consumer isn't aware of these, you are getting less at the store..and there is no notification on the box. I feel it's shady & deceptive.

Paying the same price, or even higher but the companies providing less.

What’s shrinkflation? How to spot and avoid sneaky price hikes at the grocery store

The price of everyday goods has increased over the last few months.

www.miamiherald.com

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

So you agree that Apple would prefer people to keep buying those chargers from them anyway and make more money.

I agree Apple would like to keep selling products it makes and therefore make money on them, yes, you're right, you've absolutely done me there. What a gotcha.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Considering all other environmental efforts of theirs, I wouldn't say that their reasoning for this change was purely virtue signalling even though they clearly omitted the influence money had on their decision. Apple doing it because of the money and the environment can both be true at the same time.

exactly. and even if Tim Cook doesn't give a single solitary crap about the environment and is just saying it to "virtue signal", the environmental reasons Apple have given remain true. I don't understand why people need both the motives and the outcomes to be good. If you can't have both, surely good outcomes with bad motivations are better than the other way around?

 

[StumpyBloke]

exactly. and even if Tim Cook doesn't give a single solitary crap about the environment and is just saying it to "virtue signal", the environmental reasons Apple have given remain true. I don't understand why people need both the motives and the outcomes to be good. If you can't have both, surely good outcomes with bad motivations are better than the other way around?

Because some people just like to bitch for the sake of bitching because they’ve got nothing else to do in their lives.

 

[antiprotest]

There is no doubt it was done for margin reasons. Why ship an adapter and EarPods when you can make customers buy them for $19 each?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out Apple could have offered redeemable vouchers if they wanted to benefit customers and the environment.

Eventually we would get away with murder with environment as an excuse. After all for every person you kill you reduce the carbon footprint.

Note to mods: I am speaking hyperbolically, metaphorically, etc.

 

[TimmKook]

Report claims Apple saved $6.5 billion by removing charger and EarPods from iPhone boxes

By one account, Apple saved over $6.5 billion by leaving the charging brick and the EarPods out of the iPhone box starting with iPhone 12.

www.phonearena.com

Has apple become the greediest company in history?

Wait till you hear how much we MADE by people having to go buy the charging bricks ? I had grandmas emailing me asking how to charge the phone after they had already left the Apple Store. SUCKERS!