Hacker News Reader

Comment by conductr | Hacker News Reader

Would a toy manufacturer be sued in Brazil for selling toys without batteries? “Batteries not included” is such a common marketing phrase it was used as a major movie title… in 1987.

What if they required some “expensive” proprietary battery that was sold separately? (Power tools do this in the US)

For me, I don’t know anything about Brazil, but this lawsuit only makes sense if they misled the public into believing there would be a cable included. Likely, it was very clear about was actually included and people just didn’t read it or care enough (already deciding they’d buy a knock-off). I remember this moment in time and it was pretty well known in the US from my recollection. Even my non-tech friends knew about it and were kind of upset that it would cost them more and all their existing cables and accessories would be obsolete.

View on HN

I own a number of power tools, I've never seen one come without a necessary component for basic operation. Maybe you can link to some brands that bare costs similar to an iPhone that are sold without basic components.

The problem is that you can't compare the US to other countries in this way. The salaries and what people take home are drastically different. Even inside the US, if anyone bothered to look, you'd probably find that most US citizens outside of wealthy areas give something up to get the next iPhone. Adding the charger on top of that likely has impact, just less so than a place like Brazil.

Search “tool only” and you’ll find tons of power tools with no batteries. You have to own their batteries already. For example, I own about 20 dewalt tools and only 3 batteries. When I buy a new tool, it’s usually cheaper for me to buy dewalt because I have the batteries. Most manufacturers do this, or the common ones you’ll find in big box retail. I’m not sure if it’s US only thing though.

I don’t buy the wealth/income factor. A company prices their products and if you can’t afford it, you shouldn’t buy it. That’s a pretty universal concept.

>I own a number of power tools, I've never seen one come without a necessary component for basic operation.

it's very common for power tools to be sold "body only", i.e. without a battery or charger

To add to this clarification, the reason is that the power tools from one company typically have interchangeable battery packs, therefore if you have purchased a few full sets with battery and charger, often you do not need more, therefore tools can be purchased "body only".

Here is an example: https://www.homedepot.com/p/RYOBI-ONE-HP-18V-Brushless-Cordl...

Edit: GP asked for link to tool that costs similar to an iPhone that is body only, here's one priced at $2500: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Makita-18V-LXT-Lithium-Ion-Cordl...

Thanks for the link!

So, I own some Makita equipment. There's a big difference in what Makita is doing and what Apple is doing. Makita sells a baseline product with no battery for the reasons you mentioned at $2500, they sell a bundle with two 5 Ah batteries and a charger for an extra $100, and you can buy batteries and a charger separately for significantly more: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Makita-18V-LXT-Lithium-Ion-High-... (This is one battery with less amp hours)

Apple lets you buy the phone and charger separately; there is no bundle.

I asked for links. I've never bought something like a drill or battery operated saw that didn't come with a battery. Did they come with drill bits or a blade? Not always, but I think a customer can expect a battery and a way to charge it.

You can usually buy it both ways, with or without the batteries.

You can buy most cordless power tools “bare”, without battery+charger. Because those are a significant portion of the cost and if you already have several tools in that family, you probably don’t want to pay for another battery. (Or charger…. I admit to having a couple duplicate chargers, which bugs me.)

Exactly because you do not know anything that you should refrain from basing your opinions by using only your own context of living.

Except this whole thread is about trying to understand this lawsuit, which requires comparing the different contexts (Brazilian and not)

Let me fix that for you: > Would a toy manufacturer be sued in Brazil for selling toys without a charging cable?

The answer is: Yes.

To add it further. If it required some cable that could be considered standard enough so people can buy it anywhere from anyone, then the answer would be "no".

AFAIK, technically nobody ever deemed any cable standard enough. I am confident (but IANAL) you would win the suit if you require a USB A to USB C cable, but you will probably get sued.

Ok TIL. But still makes no sense to me if they informed you about what was in the box. I’m just stuck in that mental model I suppose.

Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

> Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

I mean, it seems pretty easy to distinguish between those two to me? One set are consumables ("batteries for toys", "fuel for cars"), while the other set are long-lived goods ("charging cables").

But why should one be included and the others can be excluded, the fact the cable was available for purchase should have been enough.

The law has to draw a line somewhere. Cars have to come with wheels, even if wheels are available for purchase. Appliances have to come with power cable, even if wires are available for purchase.

> What if they required some “expensive” proprietary battery that was sold separately?

Yes, in that case they would be sued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com