But since they changed the charging options, it really feels like a cost cutting measure they are trying really hard to spin as an eco-friendly one.
So will every iPad charger ever made, btw.
And every USB-C Mac charger ever made.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether you or any particular observer wants to give credit for this reducing e-waste or being "eco-friendly". It's a plainly obvious fact that it will massively reduce e-waste and be a massive net positive on the eco-friendly front, in about 5 different ways. Those facts remain valid regardless of how one chooses to think about the ethical/moral/environmental cred or goodwill that Apple deserves for this move, or Apple's profit motives.
But it's not the optimal experience.
I do admit that it's not optimal for every single user, but I do think it's a net improvement for most users.
This seems to be a common narrative, that the savings have been passed onto the consumer. Is it really true? It's difficult to be sure, as there's no iPhone 12 that comes with the plug + earbuds bundled. However, there is one data point that most people don't bother to consider.
The iPhone SE (2020) base model launched at $399 in April. It still retails for $399 today.
In April, the iPhone SE shipped with headphones and a plug.[0] It doesn't anymore today.[1]
In the case of the iPhone SE, the price absolutely did not go down. All that happened was that Apple increased their profit margins.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200427193132/https://www.apple...
[1] As part of our efforts to reach our environmental goals, iPhone SE does not include a power adapter or EarPods. Included in the box is a USB‑C to Lightning cable that supports fast charging and is compatible with USB‑C power adapters and computer ports. https://web.archive.org/web/20201023201007/https://www.apple...
The only thing consumers need to think about is "Does this product provide enough value to me for its cost". For me personally a charging brick and earpods provides no value since I would just leave them in the box.
I'm not sure whether this is satire or an sincere attempt at arguing that price hikes are good for consumers.
If the savings really did just go to C level pockets then the product next year would be less compelling than the competitions so you would logically pick the other offerings.
Edit: Oh, they also removed the earpods. Yeah, for the 2020 SE this is a clear move to increase margins. To be fair, it was already lower margin and is still a great value phone.
You are a one off use case. The standard deviation for your experience is pretty large. Especially for first time iPhone buyers.
- People who are upgrading an old iphone will still have a USB-A to lightning cable from their old phone, so they can charge their new iphone using their old charger and old cable
- People upgrading from android probably already have a USB-C charger, so they can use the bundled USB-C to lighting cable to charge their new iphone
- People who want to buy a new USB-C charger can do so without also needing to buy a lightning cable to go with it. (The charger can also be used for charging an ipad or magsafe puck, so it makes sense not to include a cable with the charger.)
In short, by including the USB-C to lightning cable, almost everyone who buys an iphone 12 won't need any new accessories with their new phone. (Unless you want faster charging or wireless charging and don't have other USB-C bricks floating around.)
Before, you were forced to buy the bundled wall wart, now you have the option to keep using what you had or buy a charger if you need it?
They're still forcing a bundled cable, but it's a different cable you probably don't have many of?
There is the iphone SE 2, Pixel 4a etc...
If it's such a problem, buy a braided cable from Amazon and power brick. Cheaper cost, better quality and will last longer than any Apple charger.
In any given room I can find at least 5 I think.
For 0.025% of the price of the phone or less, you can get a braided lightning cable and stop caring about this first world problem.
Isn't wireless charging a big step backwards with respect to power efficiency? With the millions of phones they sell and the fact that every one of them is charged daily, are the losses due to Apples new charging scheme insignificant?
ETA: the total charging loss from ten million iPhones charging 0-100 percent via MagSafe every day for a year would be 21,505 teslas.
The last bit is also wrong, 6wh * 10M = 600 Teslas. You can also read as “600 Teslas can provide phone charging for ten million people for an entire year”, take it as you wish...
Your fridge can easily use 100kWh a month. You’ll save far more energy by closing the door a couple seconds early every time you open it. Phone charging is a drop in the bucket.
The iPhone 12 has a 11 Wh battery. Assume it's fully charged daily, that's 11Wh * 365 ~ 4kwh per year. It's about 50 cents of electricity to charge the phone for a year. It's imperceptible given other household electricity items.
If people are concerned about electricity usage, they should give away LED lightbulbs.
In some places where heating is still done with natural gas you might even be more eco-friendly by having an inefficient charger.
And as far as heating is concerned, heat pumps are more efficient, and most electricity—when turned into resistive heat—is less efficient than burning the fuel directly.
So the only case where it would be a benefit is if your heat is fuel-based, but your power is renewable, and this condition lasts most of the year.
> it really feels like a cost cutting measure they are trying really hard to spin as an eco-friendly one
This is cynical.
> This is cynical.
The iPhone SE launched with earbuds and a plug. It no longer ships with them. The retail price hasn't changed. It can be good for the environment and a cost-cutting measure.
Another commenter has noted that by making the box about half as thick, that doubles the number of units that can fit in a container. That's a huge saving for Apple. And yet the iPhone SE still retails at the same price despite now including less.
Why is any of this your business?
Either the price works for you or it doesn't. There's no moral component to this. You aren't entitled to low costs.
Because I am the person paying for the thing?
Generally speaking, people care about saving more of their money, they care much less about how much money the company they are purchasing goods or services for is able to retain by providing less for the same (or more) price.
I don't see how people paying 1 grand from Apple are upset at not having $0.50 power brick. If it's a problem, you can get a USB A/USB C Amazon Basics dual bricks + braided lightning cable that will last forever and is objectively better quality.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MD810LL/A/apple-5w-usb-po...
Granted, if you're enough of a sucker to buy these accessories directly, it's not Apple's fault; it's yours.
It’s like selling a car without tires, saying it’s a big savings for the company while not changing the price.
It's more like selling a kettle without water. It's expected most reasonable people will have their own water supply.
First time buyers of iPhones aren't unreasonable. Being unreasonable is saying a trillion dollar company is fine to charge more for less.
Make a purchasing decision?
There are value-conscious customers out there, many of which hang out on "deal hunting" sites even for luxury goods. Although the type of consumer willing to scrutinize the bill of materials in order to optimize the best specs per dollar is probably looking at Android.
If you lived in a small town with only a single bakery in it, would it not matter to you whether the bakery is selling you bread for a bit over their production costs, or 2x, or 5x those costs?
The word that's used to refer to mass market goods sold with large profit margins is "overpriced".
This is the new normal. Sealed hardware to discourage battery replacement, no 3.5mm jack to discourage reuse of old headphones and to encourage sales of Airpods with their tiny 2 year batteries, and now, no power bricks to encourage sales of extra power bricks. All greenwashed and the idiot consumer buys it.
Lots of wall socket USB charging ports are USB-A - even nice new ones with qualcomm quick charge (or whatever it is).
Personally, I would much prefer utility ports (on the wall, in the rack, on the backs of computers) to remain USB-A and leave the mini connectors on the devices themselves...
Doubtful. I'm pretty sure every single motherboard has at least one USB-C port in the back, and most will come with the new USB-C header as a lot of the latest cases have a front USB-C port.
My iMac 5K has TB3 ports but whenever I plug anything there the temps increase 10ºC which is a deal breaker IMO. I'm more than happy with the speeds of USB3 ports.
The only device I connect via USB-C regularly is my Android phone.
They didn't. They added a new, optional one. Everything that used to charge an iPhone 11 will still charge an iPhone 12. I'm even willing to bet money on the fact that the original 30-pin connector (via an adapter) will charge the new phones. An iPod dock from 2001 would probably charge these phones.
The article is a bit of a strawman but I think it's inexcusable to be charging nearly twice the price of the charger for a 2m cable that disintegrates after a year or two. Especially when - as you say - they've changed the one in the box backwards-incompatibly (and it's 1m too).