I don’t get it. I am sure (tbc) that Apple didn’t mislead people that the phone didn’t include a charger, so if it clearly says it on the box, then why can a Brazil court order Apple to reimburse customers for charger-less iPhones when they weren’t charged for it to begin with?
@JohnPhilpin I’m kind of surprised Apple hasn’t offered models with chargers, tbh, as a way to up-charge (or feign a discount) because I still know lots of non-tech people who complain about lack of chargers, especially with some devices making the switch to usb-c now. I think they can easily handle the doubling of skus to maintain Tim Cook’s beloved “customer sat”.
Brazil is its own cluster these days and I say that as someone w/ familial ties who closely follows Brazil.
@humdrum yup - I get the 'with chargers / without chargers' debate - and Apple have made their usual 'my way or the highway' decisions - I think originally it emerged from why provide a charger when the chances are you already have one ...
Re SKUs - again - they are famous for keeping that number low, so adding the option of with or without chargers would double the number ...
What I don’t get though is if I sell a phone that clearly says no charger - and it is being imported and sold quite openly .... why you can suddenly be fined for not having a charger.
I presume there is some small print somewhere.