Yep, excellent example. Such details have a minimal expense, especially when a single design can be applied to multiple products (and generations) of them without much (or any) modification.
Source: @lispi314
https://mastodon.social/@lispi314@udongein.xyz/111564194983436418
@volkris @lispi314 That an be true. But I doubt it’s often true, or that some other cost might not be offset by the enhancement. There are thousands of examples of other features where that it would be a stretch to blame on that. (i.e., ketchup packs that open poorly, trash bins without gunk-free handles, cracker wrappers without bag closures, etc. etc). Too many things suck because a LOT of innovation died with real competition. Thanks conservatives!.
@shoq Oh it's very often true.
You can look at rules and standards from everyone from OSHA through UL through various national electric codes to see just how micromanaging they are.
It's the kind of thing I personally deal with everyday, that if I build one way then I only have to deal with one set of codes, but if I do something like have a detachable cord then I have to deal with two different sets of codes, getting them both certified separately, and that adds a whole lot of hassle and expense.
Or indeed buy the cord from another manufacturer that had it certified separately and bundle it in the package for sale.
So again, all you have to certify is a single thing (a standardized socket), which is as many you as you would've had to certify anyway.
All the same, not including the cord is completely normal for computer PSUs (a "locking" variant of which is what I'd expect to be used for items that move more regularly), so I'm not sure why it'd be so noteworthy.