What's the deal with these new non-detachable chargers?

mrdoubleb

New member
Jan 7, 2013
87
0
0
Visit site
I've noticed in newer reviews and customer posts, that some(?) new Lumias in some(?) regions come with a new type of charger, that does not have a detachable USB cable.

First of all: what the hell?! This is simply stupid. All smartphones are bound to be connected to a computer when transferring photos or songs and it's so handy to have the cable around by just unplugging from the charger. The AC-60 charger is such a great addition to the Lumia line. Why go back and force users to buy another cable and carry it around? I don't get it. To save 50 cents? Is this new charger even cheaper?

Second: this seems to be pretty random. I have seen some 530 and 730 reviews mention it but not 735. Is this region or phone class dependent?
Whatever it is, it's a pretty stupid trend. :eck:

Good old AC-60
ac-60.png

The new charger
image_9859.jpg
 

xandros9

Active member
Nov 12, 2012
16,107
0
36
Visit site
You got a point.

My sister's 521 had a non-detachable charger, but came with a dinky USB cable too.

But remember, on a large scale, even a few cents saved per unit adds up fast.
 

mathsisbest

New member
Nov 1, 2014
229
0
0
Visit site
You got a point.

My sister's 521 had a non-detachable charger, but came with a dinky USB cable too.

But remember, on a large scale, even a few cents saved per unit adds up fast.

By your logic, the new charger production on a large scale will cost even more: not only is it non-detachable but they are also producing a usb cable too.
 

iamtim

New member
Nov 12, 2012
1,577
0
0
Visit site
By your logic, the new charger production on a large scale will cost even more: not only is it non-detachable but they are also producing a usb cable too.

Not if they can source the USB cables through some manufacturer cheaper than they could make them...
 

eusty

New member
Jun 1, 2014
1,022
0
0
Visit site
I've had both, the 630 came with a detectable cable but the 930 didn't, but it's a really long cable which is nice.

The argument about having a detachable one handy to transfer files is a poor one IMHO. I always use WiFi to move things to and from the phone and it's not like it's a specialist cable, most homes must have dozens of them lying about.

Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
 

iamtim

New member
Nov 12, 2012
1,577
0
0
Visit site
Actually, I think I prefer the non-detachable charger and the small USB cable. The small cable worked GREAT in my car, put the phone right where I wanted it without having some spaghetti mess all over my passenger seat. :)
 

Ixia

New member
Oct 4, 2013
325
0
0
Visit site
It's not new. My N8 had a non-detachable charger, though it also came with a quality data cable. I think the only Nokia I've had which had a detachable charger is the 1020, daughter's 520 & 530 both came with a non detachable.
 

mrdoubleb

New member
Jan 7, 2013
87
0
0
Visit site
Hmm. Interesting responses. I've had a 800 now have a 930. One friend has a 620 another has a 520. All came with the detachable USB cable. Makes me wonder if this is more regional, than anything.

Regarding USB vs WiFi, USB is still quicker, especially for larger files. I also like how i can pack the cable separate without the fear of wearing it out where it attaches to the charger. May be just my preference, though.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
324,068
Messages
2,244,919
Members
428,161
Latest member
Toologix