127
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
127 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
6825 readers
246 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But wouldn't it be equally valid to frame it the other way around that so far we have paid for them to be included, whether we like it or not?
I mean the price to manufacture them doesn't change and companies werent charities before either.
Feels like in a functioning market this should just sort itself out. At least if it is transparent whether the phone includes accessories or not. People could factor this into their pricing decision.
The more interesting argument imo is the one another comment in this thread made, that this way miss match between phone and charger/cable capabilities might happen. Which seems like a double edged sword. One the one hand manufacturers can advertise great charging speeds and people might not realize that only expensive chargers might be able to achieve those. On the other hand as the comment points out customers might not get the expected performance leading to frustration and negative associations with the particular brand.
But then you have it. Sell it, put it in another room, give it away. They should lower the phone price by the amount of whatever they charge for the charger. They should also give buyers the option to have it included or not, especially in this economy.
I'm honestly not sure (given the price the cable likely adds to the price of the device vs the quality/longevity of the cable) that I want it. Apple has been notorious for selling their charging cables at a premium while making them basically as cheaply as possibly. Other companies have literally made their brand on being better than the OEM cables and chargers you get with devices.
Other phone manufacturers aren't exempt from the phone cable failure thing either. It's crazy to me that they were allowed to sell such shoddy accessories in the first place.
When you add in the ways that countries are trying to cut down on e-waste I can't say I'm surprised.
My main point was that you pay for it regardless. All the things you list i can also do with a cable i simply purchase seperately. But the difference here is that i can either choose not to buy one, if i don't need it. Or purchase a specific one e.g. a very long one, if i prefer that over the standard short one.
I doubt most manufacturers would lower the price when stopping to include them, but they might delay raising it for a while. In any case i think the economic mechanism (at least in an idealistic setting) is logical.
I don't think it would logistically make sense to have versions with and without accessories included, since that instantly doubles the version count. But most if not all places that sell phones also sell cables/chargers. So in that way the choice already exists.
That said i think this line of thinking mostly works because we have standardized on USB-C for quite a while now, so the assumption that most people already have access to a cable is valid. This would be different if they'd require specific cables like e.g. my garmin watch does, which you wouldn't normally have and that you'd likely purchase from the same manufacturer. In that case seperating them might have the opposite effect in making the price to consumers less transparent.
Also i could get behind the idea that not including something like a cable would require a prominent warning lable that "a cable or wireless charger (if applicable)" is required for longterm use.
BTW you can get Garmin to USB-C little adapters, they come in quite handy.
Because Walmart and dollar store cords are of equal quality?