Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you sell your old laptop when you buy a new one, you generally sell it with old charger. Sounds like a symptom of incompatibility. I’ve only ever included the charger when it was specific to the laptop. > And different Apple laptops take chargers of different maximum watts (they're compatible but not optimal), so they're not all the same anyways. Chargers automatically provide whatever power level is needed, up…
> Bundling is a very classic example of an attempt to circumvent free market economics, using the greater importance of one choice to dictate a second choice. Only when there's no competition and you can use that to abuse market power. But competition for laptops is strong. Most consumers want their laptops to come with a charger, even if you personally don't. That's why they're sold that way. Like, nobody says the f…
> Most consumers want their laptops to come with a charger, even if you personally don't. That's why they're sold that way.
Citation needed, on both counts. Plenty of counter-examples in this thread. Non-tech people I know aren’t charger crazed, they’re mildly amused or annoyed by their inexplicable excess of chargers.
> Like, nobody says the free market is failing because Coke forces me to buy carbonated H2O along with their syrup at the grocery store.
I’d say it is indeed failed / nonexistent there, it’s just that nobody cares, because its potential benefit is so small it’s outweighed by overhead. Chargers aren’t laptops or cars or houses, but, as you said, there’s a lot more to them, and they’re more expensive and contribute significantly to e-waste. There actually is a charger market, and it’s better when it’s more free.
To be clear, the healthier market I’m envisioning is one where consumers can make charger purchasing decisions freely, not one where nobody’s allowed to also offer a bundle.