| > 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 to their max, and charging power isn’t the steady tick upward we’re used to elsewhere. The MacBook Pro did get a faster charger a few years ago, relegating old ones to that “compatible but not optimal” state, but meanwhile MacBook Air chargers got slower, and most releases didn’t change the charger. Certainly there are sometimes benefits to buying a new charger, but it happens much less often than new device purchases, and even when there are benefits purchases should still be the customer’s choice. > Sometimes letting the free market decide actually gives customers what they want and find most useful. I agree, but “free market” doesn’t mean lawlessness, it means an actual market that’s actually free. Actual market: companies compete on economics, not e.g. violence or leverage over consumers. Actually free: consumers freely choose between available options. 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 free market is failing because Coke forces me to buy carbonated H2O along with their syrup at the grocery store. The market prefers it when they're bundled.