Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Printer Industry?
Greyfox writes: "Here is an interesting story about the printer industry versus ink-cartridge refillers. Anyone who's bought a low-cost inkjet knows that you can spend over half the cost of the printer on ink. So it was only natural that an industry would spring up around refilling the cartridges. Well the printer industry has apparently been fighting back, trying to protect their market share. As with all good stories, legislation is being considered. Worth a read." Sort of like spyware -- it's a back-and-forth battle.
I know someone who doesn't bother buying new cartridges. He just picks up a new printer each time and sells the old one off second hand. He saves about GBP5 a shot doing it that way.
Epson are the worst for this. They have some device on the cartridges which stops you from refilling them (to 'improve quality' apparently). The catch? Take a cartridge out before moving a printer, put it back in again, the printer refuses it.
This reminds me of a certain piece of software which won't work if you change your computer... Except you can't ring up Epson and get them to re-'certify' the ink...
This is the same as: Sell the Razor at a loss, make the profit on the blades.
I don't understand why something that's okay at the $3.00 range (blades) isn't okay at the $50 range. I mean really, do you think these guys are making a profit on a $50 printer when the _packaging_ for that printer's gotta cost $12?
Buy a laser printer. The toner doesn't dry out or age. Print 99% of your slashdot articles on it. Buy a cheapie inkjet for the occasional color print you need. Not only is the laser printer faster and easier to read, You'll go 2 or 3 years before needing a new toner cart. (I've got an NEC superscript 870. Bought it in 1997. The first toner cartridge lasted four years and printed 2200 pages with one misfeed. It's on it's second toner cartridge)
Besides, by the time you need ink on your color printer, the NEW color printer will be higher quality. (or USB, or whatever)
I'm actually considering buying a dedicated photo printer as that's all I really use color for now anyway!
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
The printing industry doesn't even compare to Sony's PS2 market. Had they sold their PS2 for $80 and charged you $150 per game, and made you renew your license on the game every month or so, then it would be similar.
I've put up with my lexmark and its $40-$50 cartridges simply because it's no better for any other company. You would think a company would come along and sell their printer for a higher price, and drop the ink price... that would drive everyone out of business no? I know I sure as hell would buy it, along with pretty much everyone I know...
The solution is all you people who want laws, throw your money into a corporation, and COMPETE.
If you can do it for cheaper, THEN DO IT.
I, myself, can not. I looked at the cost of getting it all to work. There is no way to do it. Since they know you won't pay $600 for a printer, and $5 for cartridges, they do it the way they have to do it to make a profit, albeit a small one.
Epson, HP, Canon, they're not in bed together. This is no boat race. They found out that the average American barely uses their printer, but enough that spending $100-$150 a year on cartridges is not a bad deal, rather than paying $500 for a new printer and $25 a year on cartridges.
There are numerous other ways to print in color. I bought an HP Color LaserJet 4500. I print everything. The damn thing is a personal printer for me, and it runs ALL the time. The cost over the past year? Maybe $200, including tons of toner (thousands of pages printed). I love it. I will NEVER go back to Ink Jet.
Go, compete. The market is open. Once the government regulates, you think it'll help us, or help HP and Epson?
Think hard. I know you can...
It is actually a rational strategy that over time defeats the printer manufacturers.
The printer manufacturers strategy appears to be to seel the printer as a loss leader for the cartridge. That strategy starts to become seriously painful for the printer manufacturers if people start buying the printers and not the cartridges. People who treat the printers as disposable are costing the manufacturers $20 or so every time they get a new one. If that takes hold the printer manufacturers will be forced to make it more attractive to buy the refills.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I remember reading someone who went over HP's books, and concluded the printer consumables business was basically propping up the rest of the company.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
The printer business is just latching onto the "razor and blade" business model that worked so well for other industries, especially the video game business.
The strategy is only profitable if it succeeds. Most cases it fails, largely because purchasers factor in the cost of consumables into the purchase cost. I have seen lost of dotcom companies try to establish a razor and blades model only to fail miserably.
In this case the printer market is very competative and is more likely to clear in the long run than result in a steady state razor and blades model. As the companies no longer compete on quality alone the bottom feeder companies will attempt to increase market share by raising the issue of running costs.
Of course the problem arises out of abuse of IP. According to anti-trust law tied sales are illegal. The courts have so far invalidated a number of uses of IP to require tied sales (the nintendo case, various parts cases etc.) Unfortunately they have not been as pro-active on trade secrets.
If slashweenies jabbering on about microsoft would apply the same principles on a general basis this type of behavior would be more universaly condemned.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I have two printers, a Laser and an Inkjet. Lasers have a great economics with cost per page. Office depot brand toner cartriges are $58 a piece for my HP laserjet 4L. The inkjet is much more expensive per page, but I have found the my local Costco has inkjet cartridges @ $30 for a 2 pack. I really don't like the idea of buying a cheap printer to throw out, seems like an awful disrespect to the environment. If really want to go on the cheap, find yourself a used laserjet. A local shop near me, has plenty of laserjet 3,4,and 5 series printer at around $100, including toner. I have had mine since 1995 without any problems, doesn't get more cost effective than that. Too bad HP and Compaq are merging, HP was once a great company that made great products.
is that Primus quote from the Brown (read: shit) albumn? get something off Chesse or Frizzle Fry for god's sake....
I don't know where you are getting your toner carts from but I maintain about 20 printers including 2 high volume color laster and 8 super high volume black printers. I use nothing but recycled carts for black and would use em for the color if anyone made em. Sure once in a while we get one that causes smearing or jams paper, but since we work with a reputable refill house we get a credit for that one get a replacement the next day. The only problem that I've had that was serious was a cracked cart that dropped about 30 grams of black toner into one of the laserjet 8150's. I took the unit apart and cleaned it but it still occasionally rains out some toner on the paper trays when they are refilled.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Sounds like a good argument, doesn't it? But compelling consumers to use only their product "for quality assurance" ("for your protection")? Ever bought a Mazda that won't run without MazdaGas(tm)?
This is called "product locking" I believe. And, in other times and shapes, has been ruled illegal. HP over the years has spread its share of FUD regarding printer warranties - "Use a non-HP cartridge, lose your warranty." And been slapped down. But saying almost anything but exactly that is okay. And new chip technology is just a way to remove the choice (and use the DMCA to prevent anyone circumventing it).
Lexmark is famous for selling two types of cartridges - one with no strings. The other, known as Prebate, requires that the purchaser agree that they will only dispose of the cartridge in the trash, or return it to Lexmark. And, this second Prebate cartridge is offered at a markedly cheaper cost. An EULA applied to beer.
Whenever someone says, "It's not about the money"...
Consumer Protection Laws that are currently active don't protect the consumer at all.
I beg to differ. I think that laws against false and deceptive advertising help the consumer immensely. The laws regarding consumer credit are tremendously valuable. They guarantee that a consumer can see his/her credit history and dispute erroneous entries. Laws that require that manufacturers of food products accurately list ingredients not only help consumers, they saves lives (allergies). The Magnuson-Moss warranty act, that prevents a manufacturer from denying warranty claims when you use aftermarket products (e.g., a Fram oil filter in your GM car). Laws against bait-and-switch advertising help consumers. I could go on for pages, but I think you see my point.
Can you name ONE competitor to ANY of Microsoft's products that works decently enough, that is compatible across the board with the hardware that the average user has, that is easy to teach to the laymen, and that looks and feels good?
Yes. Opera 6 is a superior browser to IE 5.5. The UI is superior. The security is superior. When there is a rendering problem on a site, it is almost invariably due to some Microsoft "extension" to HTML that was put in to stifle competition.
How is selling a printer for $50 and cartridges for $30 colluding?
When all of the manufacturers get together and agree to do it, it's collusion. And I believe that is what happened.
If I come out with a $300 printer and $10 cartridges, will you buy it?
Not necessarily, but if it's $200, does not dry out the ink cartridges if unused for a week, and has reliability approaching my laser printer, sure I'll buy it. And so would many others. I'd even think about it at $300 if it had good paper handling, print quality, interface, etc.
The "Libertarian bullshit" about starting a company won't work well as long as we have all this government protection of "big business."
I said that consumers needed protection, not big business. I'll agree that we need a lot less corporate welfare.
But that does not mean that every time I am dissatisfied with a product sector that I should start a company. I don't want to go into competition with Canon, HP, Lexmark, and Epson. I just want an inkjet printer that does not use miniscule, expensive cartridges that are engineered to fail.
I, for one, am not too happy with these "razor and blade" business models, or loss-leaders in general. Whenever someone gives something away at a loss, they do it because they expect something in return. Then when this happens, the freeloaders complain that the company is sleazy and unethical. Most of the time, I'd rather just pay directly for the product I want, on the basis that quality and low price are now directly rewarded with my patronage. There are countless examples:
1. TV advertising to sponsor programming
The result of which is poor quality TV in general: shows geared at young people, since they are more susceptible to advertising; mindless sitcoms, since they apparently put people in a buying mood; influence by advertisers over programming decisions, such as when advertisers almost forced the cancellation of Politically Incorrect.
2. Advertising to sponsor web content
This is just an unhealthy business model. Since the web is global, a site can't attract local advertising. There is only so much global (or even national) advertising to go around, and the result is that most mailing lists that I subscribed to were sponsored by people selling vitamin pills and penis enlargers (most of these lists eventually switched to a pay model). Plus it is just too easy to block the ads on a website.
3. Spyware and selling personal info
People who thought that Kazaa and Yahoo were giving them free services just to be benevolent were obviously just naive. Sure, Yahoo didn't need to sell your personal info back when their primary business model was selling stock, but now they they actually have to make a profit... what did you expect?
4. Let people copy your music for free, but make your money selling the packaging and cover art.
Wink, wink. As if you don't scan the cover art and post it online too, and as if most people really care. No one really believes this one any more. Nowadays, the party line is "let people copy your music for free because most people are basically honest and will buy the cd eventually."
5. Give away/sell your software at a loss in order to boost the sales of your hardware.
The fervour surrounding this business model died down when its poster child, VA Linux suffered a major stock crash. There are so many problems with this that it's not even funny. The cost of software development is high, probably higher than your hardware design, so you need to have huge margins on your hardware to compensate. Since you have put a whole bunch of software companies out of business, there will now be fierce competition in the hardware sector; someone is going to undercut you. Plus, if your code is halfway modular and you open source it, someone is going to port it to your competitor's platform anyway, so this gave you zero leverage.
6. Sell your game console at a loss and make money selling games, or likewise with printers and ink.
Which works great if you can retain the exclusive license to sell games/ink.
7. Give away your software and make money selling services and support
It may be the most-loved business model on Slashdot, but I think it stinks. Firstly, it punishes quality. If your software is bug free, who needs support? If your GUI is good, who needs help setting it up? If your product is flexible, who needs customization? Secondly, it doesn't work in the consumer market. When I buy software, I am paying for the software, not the support. This model has worked to some extent in selling support to businesses, mostly because businesses have been content to waste money in the past (e.g. the $1500 PC sitting on my desk which they bought for $4000). Watch for this to disappear in the new, leaner economy.
8. Give away your software at a loss and make your money selling t-shirts and plush Mozilla toys.
This business model was advocated by Netscape. Enough said.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
It sounds like you're joking/trolling. You can get new inkjet printers for less than $25? Kindly reveal your supplier.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.