Slashdot Mirror


Regionally Encoded Toner Cartridges 'to Serve Customers Better'

sandbagger writes: The latest attempt to create artificial scarcity comes from Xerox, according to the editors at TechDirt, who cite German sources: "Xerox uses region coding on their toner cartridges AND locks the printer to the first type used. So if you use a North America cartridge you can't use the cheaper Eastern Europe cartridges. The printer's display doesn't show this, nor does the hotline know about it. When c't reached out to Xerox, the marketing drone claimed, this was done to serve the customer better..."

71 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Done to _gouge_ the customer better by gweihir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fixed that for you, Xerox.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your edit makes the market-bot's statement more objectively true, but from the company's perspective, the customer's number one problem is that they haven't given the company enough money yet.

      They're just helping their unfortunate customers with their money-infestation problem.

      "We'll just take that nasty revenue off your hands."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course you are perfectly right. After all, the primary purpose of any company in capitalism is to make more money, no matter the cost.

      you are wrong

      the primary purpose of any company in capitalism is to make more money for the owners

      everyone else can sod off

    3. Re: Done to _gouge_ the customer better by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not about knockoffs, it's about the fact that the exact same Xerox first-party cartridges sell cheaper in other parts of the world. Already use a US-coded cartridge? Found your Xerox-branded cart cheaper on Amazon, but shipping from Europe? Well, you're out the cost of that cart when you get it, because your printer won't accept it and the seller won't take it back open. Oops.

      And I say this having just bought a Xerox laser printer. I've since sourced the chips needed and learned who manufactures their toner so I can order direct. Since the cartridges in my printer do nothing more than deliver toner, I'll be refilling. With OEM toner.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by lalleglad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, capitalism as such is not the issue here, and the definition is as follows:

      An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

      So, a company has three major stakeholders (in no particular order):

      1. Owners for which the company should make a profit.
      2. Employees that should be taken care of so they can be efficient and make the company successful.
      3. Customers that should be take care of so they want to purchase the products or services from the company, so it can be successful.

      Xerox in this case seems to not fulfill #3. and for sure I will not purchase their products, or advice anyone else to do so.

      Actually, I think it should be unlawful to make a business case where the actual cost isn't reflected in the price, which could be like this region based split or like printer companies selling the printer device cheap and the ink or toner very expensive.

      At least the USA, Canada and EU should be able to make such rules as they have some concerns for the users and clout to enforce the rules.

      I hope, but I may be dreaming ...

    5. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it should be unlawful

      Yeah, because random thoughts should become laws, because you think they ought to.

      How about government stop trying to fix businesses making stupid marketing decisions? You, as a customer, can take this information (its free) and use it to find a better alternative. If you can't find a better alternative, then Xerox (in this case) has proven its case and gained a customer.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Actually, I think it should be unlawful"

      You're not looking at this in the right way. It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.

      Xerox is ripping us off not by region encoding its products, but by using federal power to criminalize whatever consumer forms of post-purchase hacking of its product that consumer may find advantageous.

    7. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by bigfoottoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like somebody has been messing with your stapler!

    8. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Your Xerox printer would create really nice pictures of Mohammed sucking donkey dick, which you could then distribute at as many European welfare offices as you can manage. Adding the caption PRINTED BY XEROX would be helpful.

    9. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Informative

      what is the c*t magazine everybody keeps speaking of? I know plenty of c*ts, but none who work at a magazine.

      It's not c*t, it's "c't", Which is somebody's clever way of extremely abbreviating Computerteknic. More formally, and translated to English, Magazine for Computer Technics. A venerable German tech publication, despite the brevity.

      http://www.heise.de/ct/

    10. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's the part I don't get about those terrorists. I mean, they could easily win over people by bombing the right targets.

      Their PR really, really sucks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTOH, government could get rid of at least the part of the DMCA that allows companies like Xerox to make the region coding stick.

    12. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by ExekielS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing. SO MUCH FREEDOM! Only repeated studies show that if fewer than 5 companies hold more than 70% market share, there is no measurable competition, and therefore no relationship between supply, demand, and price. Just look up the list of things required for perfect competition, a third of the items are physically impossible, a third extremely unlikely, and less than 5% of the factors exist when markets have so few major players. Markets are only free if they are very competitive. Xerox can only get away with this because they don't have to care about pissing off customers, so long as they aren't an order of magnitude worse than their fellow giants.

      --
      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    13. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're not looking at this in the right way. It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.

      You fucking idiot. You wouldn't know how "real capitalism" would work if "real capitalism" came to your door and bit you on the ass.

      What part of "real capitalism" includes the need to be able to hack a consumer products code to be able to use the product that you bought in the way you see fit? What part of "real capitalism" includes a company being able to embed a trojan in its products that it doesn't tell you about which will force you to buy the most expensive consumables?

      Xerox is ripping us off not by region encoding its products, but by using federal power to criminalize whatever consumer forms of post-purchase hacking of its product that consumer may find advantageous.

      This is the part that really set me off and prompted me to call you out as an idiot. Where in the motherfucking hell do you find anything about "federal power" preventing you from hacking your Eastern European cartridge? People who bought the expensive single-serve coffee machines were able to circumvent the consumable lock-in with a goddamn piece of tape. Do you believe that's also a violation of some federal statute? Because that is just as much "hacking" the lock-in. And can you please point us to the statute that says a consumer can't alter a consumable like a toner cartridge in order to use one from a different region? Or better yet, adapt a non-Xerox cartridge to your machine?

      You goddamn libertarian mouth-breathers are always in a hurry to ascribe every bit of bad corporate behavior as being some sort of government conspiracy to take away your god-given liberty, and no corporation can ever be guilty of bad behavior. You absolutely will not hold any corporation accountable for anything, ever.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by lalleglad · · Score: 2

      you write:

      It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.

      Again, this has technically nothing per say to do with 'capitalism', but perhaps more with a regulated market.

      A regulated market requires more rights to the consumers and in the last years, at least EU has put more emphasis on consumer's rights with measures against antitrust and mobile prices.

      So, even if we have the right to decrypt Xerox cartridges it may not be so easy, as the technical barrier may be very high.

      Therefore, to protect and help the consumer it should not be lawful to so actively work against the interests of the consumers.

    15. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing.

      Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.

      There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.

      Until they end their customer hostile policies, I will not buy from Xerox. But I have never bought anything from Xerox anyway, so that isn't saying much.

    16. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Shompol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where in the motherfucking hell do you find anything about "federal power" preventing you from hacking

      This law does exist, regardless of whether you know about it or not. I think it's called Anti-circumvention millenium.... here you go

    17. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

      The idea that all consumers have all the choices in the world, is patently false. This is a tired argument and I wish people would stop making it

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    18. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by narcc · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's funny!

      See, most of their customers, including their largest customers, are very likely to be unaffected by the change as they're not buying off-brand or foreign toner cartridges. (Possibly due to service contracts or vendor related issues.) Smaller companies are stuck for years with expensive equipment; even if they're upset, that anger will fade (or the person in-change of that decision long replaced) by the time they upgrade. Worse, if Xerox is successful, and region locking turns out to make sense financially, others will follow suit quickly.

      In short, the market *can't* fix this.

      If Xerox drops this initiative, it's because the cost of implementing region locking starts to exceed the projected losses from resold cartridges. It's not going to come from consumer rebellion, as the free market fanatics would have you believe, as consumers in this case are almost universally either powerless or apathetic.

    19. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by The+Rizz · · Score: 2

      Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.

      There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.

      History has proven your assumptions wrong. People will gripe, grumble, and complain, but the companies won't care. Not enough people will leave Xerox over this to make a noticeable difference. Once HP / etc.start coming out with their next generations of printers, you can bet they'll be including this same region-locking tech in them. This is the same thing that happened when manufacturers started using microchips to decide you were out of ink based on the number of pages printed instead of actual ink levels; it pissed all the consumers off, but every manufacturer adopted it, so WTF are you supposed to do about it?

    20. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by rea1l1 · · Score: 2

      "If someone says, "to my perspective, 4 > 3 is false""
      Nothing that he said is as black and white as the example that you provided.

      "No, you'd say, "That guy is kind of an idiot""
      Never would I insult a person, especially publicly, because I believe them to be incorrect, no matter how incorrect. I would publicly point out how incorrect I believe them to be.

      I would also immediately fire anyone who goes around flinging insults at the other people I have invited to work under me.

    21. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by Person147 · · Score: 2

      Actually I know that HP do this because I bought some US official HP ink cartridges some years ago when the pound was strong against the dollar. I brought them home, fit perfectly for the same model, and they refused to work. I called HP and they said it was because they region locked them. I ditched the printer (they are the cheap part, right?) and bought a different branded one instead. I will never buy an HP printer again.

    22. Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better by godel_56 · · Score: 2

      Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing.

      Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.

      There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.

      Until they end their customer hostile policies, I will not buy from Xerox. But I have never bought anything from Xerox anyway, so that isn't saying much.

      Except HP did this probably 10 years ago. A genuine HP cartridge bought in Asia refused to work in a HP inkjet printer in Australia. I don't know if that still happens as I refuse to go near HP and I bought a B&W laser printer instead.

  2. to Serve Customers Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spoilers: it's a cookbook.

    1. Re:to Serve Customers Better by Calydor · · Score: 3, Funny

      And not a very good one. This recipe leaves the customers burned.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  3. Seems logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Otherwise you would end up printing in PAL instead of NTSC.

    1. Re:Seems logical by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Otherwise you would end up printing in PAL instead of NTSC.

      The page size would be DIN A4 instead of Letter.
      The resolution would be in DPM instead of DPI.
      The printer would get 30 days paid vacation off per year from first use instead of five vacation days for the first year, two additional days per year until maximum 10 days off.
      The printer might print on the left side of the page.
      American words such as "color", "trash", "apartment", "cop", or "truck" might be printed as "colour", "rubbish", "flat", "bobby", and "lory"

      Thanks XEROX from saving us from all this confusion.

    2. Re:Seems logical by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trust me, with my experience with modern Xerox products, they already get too many 30 day vacations.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Seems logical by camperdave · · Score: 2

      A lory is a parrot. Perhaps you meant lorry?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  4. We are stupid by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 2

    After all this time, and something so blatant - does Xerox really think this isn't obvious to everyone what they are doing? They have to lie to us to justify it?

    They do not have a monopoly, we can just go to a different brand that has some respect for their customers.

    1. Re:We are stupid by allquixotic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And which brand would that be, exactly?

    2. Re:We are stupid by TWX · · Score: 2

      Somehow I wonder if this isn't meant for the new-cartridge buyer sourcing from the normal, authorized supply-chain as much as it is to screw with the refill companies and those that use cheaper refilled toner cartridges. If a retail customer of refurbished supplies suddenly finds a 20-30% "failure" they might stop buying refills.

      That said, I have mixed feelings on refills. We've tried them off and on and had a lot of situations with bad product that breaks the printer; when there are probably 2000 printers in the organization it's a lot of work to repair broken printers that are packed to the gills with spilled or escaped toner form bad refill cartridges. On the other hand if the cartridges cost 50% less than new, it's still cheaper to deal with repairing the bad printers than it is to buy the new cartridges, so long as the supplies versus service budgets are adjusted to accurately reflect the situation, but users are angry and technicians aren't exactly pleased either when avoidable problems cause downtime and require service, so it seems to be a mixed-bag at best.

      It is kind of annoying how a fairly durable part (ie the cartridge) is considered a consumable. The bigger copiers still use bottled toner, it would be nice if the commercial office printers did too.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:We are stupid by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Epson seems to be inching into the right direction: http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:We are stupid by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Just in time. They've been on my 10-year ban list. HP just got off a 10-year ban also. Their color laser complains about non-genuine toner, but other than loud complaints from the driver it prints just fine.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:We are stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      I used to have one of their cameras, but I kept getting injured by the recoil.

      * sigh Â

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:We are stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Feels like an election, doesn't it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:We are stupid by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      Epson's $28,000 64" solvent printer begs to differ.

      The two companies don't overlap in all the types of printers they offer, but they're both making both consumer and enterprise printers.

  5. Can't we just stop printing? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we get through so much paper? Everything is electronic now, but much of it seems to need a printed copy too.

    1. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have 10 billion records, you cannot do it on paper. If you have 10 records, I have yet to see an electronic file system that is as good as "I plunked it down on my desk right in front of me". Things that I can do with something in paper that I cannot with an electronic version:

      - carry it with me and read it in public without risking an expensive device such as a a tablet, or using up my phone battery
      - give it to someone else to read without them also having a compatible electronic device
      - store it for more than a decade without much thought
      - read it in bright light, at an angle, jot notes on it with my pen
      - spill coffee on it and not risk a month's rent

    2. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Because it's a lot easier to put redlines on a paper print? We mark-up floorplans and other prints all of the time, and it's a lot easier in-the-field to do that on paper than it is to open an application on a computer or tablet and make the changes with a subpar UI.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

      If you have 10 billion records, you cannot do it on paper.

      tell that to the people at verizon who print out the phone bills

    4. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by kuhnto · · Score: 2

      Signatures...

      X --- Here

      X --- Here

      X -- And Here

      --
      "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    5. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I was staying in Europe for a few weeks (I'm from the USA) I had to wire some money over to the landlord. So I opened the PDF form from my (American) credit union, filled in the details, pasted in a signature and sent it back. "Sorry sir, but we are unable to accept an electronic copy; please print out the form, sign it, and then scan+email or fax it over."

      So of course I just opened the document in GIMP, rotated it slightly, added some noise, turned down the contrast and sent it back. Landlord was happy, credit union was happy, and all I had to do was forge my own documents...

    6. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Consider yourself lucky. I live in California but still have a Canadian bank account from when I used to work there. My Canadian bank caught on to these Photoshop shenanigans. I tried filling out their form to authorize EFTs to a new currency exchange service (my original one went out of business). They won't accept electronic copies, nor faxes. They won't even accepted a mailed notarized copy. They told me I had to print out the form, sign it, and bring it in person with photo ID to the nearest branch office which is in Canada 1300 miles away.

    7. Re:Can't we just stop printing? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Legal documents / Contracts - Because digital signatures aren't *quite* there yet, and most courts still only accept paper in official proceedings
      B.S. digital signatures have been legally enforceable since the freaking Clinton administration, and almost all courts will accept legal filings (all federal courts do) and those that won't will generally accept a fax which obviously can be generated on the senders end without paper.

      Schools - For obvious reasons
      That reason eludes me, I know momentum keeps many schools using paper but if you do it right digital should be cheaper and better and do a better job or preparing the kids for the real world

      Assembly instructions on shop floors (this is actually huge - even ruggedized tablets don't last very long in job shops)
      Then they're not properly ruggidized, most shops have no problem with the computer built into their CNC machines.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. And by "serve" ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They mean it in the "bend over and get 'served'" sense of the word?

    God but Xerox and the other printer companies are ran by assholes.

    And, of course, they can now use the DMCA to prevent someone making cartridges.

    This is why we can't have nice things. Because idiot politicians have given all the power to corporations, and consumers no longer have any choice in the matter but to get fucked^Wserverd however is dictated to them.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And by "serve" ... by mishehu · · Score: 2

      I suddenly hear a ghost of the past.... its name is Lexmark...

  7. Demand segmentation 101 by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess this is the next logical step from HP chipping ink cartridges to enforce an expiration date.

    This must have looked like an amazing idea on some MBA's PowerPoint presentation -- manufacture the exact same thing, sell it for more in the developed world, -and- increase market share in the developing world. Just have to hope the customers don't find out about it....oops.

    Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!! The difference in this case is that Xerox can now force customers to keep paying the higher fare.

    1. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!!

      Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.

      The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand. Hence any huge increase of ticket prices based on high demand is pure gouging on the airlines part. Likewise price increases based on a rapidly approaching departure time is also gouging as the time you buy your ticket also doesn't affect the costs of running the plane.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      This is true in general, but you're ignoring that airlines absolutely tailor fares based on who you are to maximize revenue, regardless of a route's capacity or load. If your travel pattern indicates that you are a "business flyer" your ticket will absolutely be more expensive than would otherwise be the case (for look at pricing on a round trip flight that does not have a Saturday in the middle of your itinerary, vs one that does. Same flights, same days even, but if you don't stay on Saturday, the ticket is significantly more expensive).

      That's not so much tailoring based on a perceived "class" (businessman, leisure traveler, etc) but to spread out demand. Prices vary not only over days of the week but also different times throughout the day. While one goal is certainly to maximize revenue (honestly, what business doesn't do that?) the goal is also to spread out demand to take pressure off of peak flights. There are fixed costs that come into play with every flight regardless if it leave full or goes out empty. By pushing passengers to these flights, even with lower fares, the airlines can make money (or at least lose less money) with flights that would otherwise be less popular, and it reduces the need/possibility of overbooking the more popular flights (which cost more to reduce demand for those flights).

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by TWX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep. Pricing for airlines seems to be a follows:

      Far-in-advance purchases, airline hasn't decided 100% to have the flight yet. Prices are a little higher because early demand can dictate whether or not the flight even occurs or not. If the supply (ie, the flight) is not guaranteed, then the burden falls on demand.

      Once enough tickets are booked to make the flight likely, the airline now wants to sell as many seats as possible, so prices drop as supply now outstrips demand. The airline knows about how much per-seat it costs to fly the plane both occuppied and empty, so it's in their interest to sell seats even sometimes at a loss if it is less of a loss than flying without passengers, and based on past performance they can attempt to balance that number.

      As the plane approaches capacity the airlines start adjusting the nature of supply and demand. They know that last-minute passengers are unlikely to purchase expensive first-class seats regardless of a lack of availablity of coach seats, so if the first-class cabin is empty or mostly empty they'll upgrade frequent flyers so that their less-expensive coach seats can now be priced at a high but not impossibly-high price for last-minute fares.

      When you fly the same route a lot, you learn how that route is priced throughout the year and how the various flights on that route fill. We've found the most common flight we use about six times a year makes sense to book 8 to 6 weeks out from flying, depending on what holidays are around then and if there are any other large-travel days like the start or end of college.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

      Airlines set their schedules months in advance based on previous passenger load data, so all the aircraft and crews are committed. Most can't just not fly planes at the last second because most airlines operate on very tight schedules, where having a plane not showing up somewhere on time bubbles through the entire system. Back when airlines hadn't figured out how to get 90+% load factors on planes, you would sometimes see (especially late night) planes fly nearly empty because they were needed at that airport for the next morning. I took a transatlantic flight 3 months ago that had only 60 people in economy class, less than 1/3 capacity. The FA said that was the strangest thing she had seen in a while and they're usually over 75% full. Domestic carriers on some routes are so full they are starting to have passengers complain about overcrowding (and airline employees can't standby travel easily anymore, or get to work in some cases because of it.)

      Fare data for most airlines is considered a trade secret - each carrier knows the environment they operate in, the type of travellers they attract and want to attract, and they know their internal costs. Fares are published to ATPCO, SITA and other fares management services, so it's partly an open trade secret, but the secret part is how the airline arrived at those prices.

    6. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand."

      Airlines don't fly a plane. They fly fleets of planes. Increasing ticket prices on fuller flights is one way of balancing demand.

      You're free to start your own airline if you think you have a better way to do it profitably.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand.

      No, but expanding capacity is indeed hugely expensive. Once you've filled every seat on a plane, costs become a lot more linear. If there's 'huge demand', first you trade up to a larger airplane, but this isn't generally cost effective for 1 more passenger, but going from a 20 seat commuter to a 30 seat one with 1 seat empty will be cost effective. Or a 150 seat 100% full craft to a 90% full 200 seat one.

      After you're flying a bigger plane, you then look at 2 flights. But extra planes are expensive. Then, once you've filled the airport up, your next step is more runways, terminals, and all that, which is hugely expensive.

      Increasing prices during high demand periods helps pay for the capacity that's only demanded during that period, it's very much NOT pure price gouging. By charging more during those periods, people like me who doesn't care about the holiday period that much will pick non-holiday periods to fly, evening out demand. By charging less during low demand periods, they get value-seekers flying during those periods, again, evening out demand, allowing steadier use of their aircraft and personnel. Beyond standard tricks like ensuring 'every' aircraft possible is flying during high demand periods, as opposed to being in maintenance, for example.

      Why do airlines charge more for last minute tickets? Because they cost the airlines more. In order to even offer the service, they can't overbook flights as much, you often have to take inefficient routing, and they can't anticipate those sales. It's like dinners that are $25 pre-order, $30 at the door. Why the extra $5? Because pre-ordered tickets are a known factor - they know how many are showing up, so they have supplies for that. They have to guess at how many people will just show up, so that can mean wasted food, thus the higher charge - and don't forget the factor that they want you to pre-order.

      Oh yeah, and if you're buying last minute at the airport you're GOING to show up, they can't apply the 'might not show up but we get to keep your money' discount.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Most airlines can't increase capacity when demand goes up. They don't have a fleet of planes sitting around. The higher prices mean that the most economically valuable travel occurs. The alternative would be a first-come first-serve situation. You don't need more than Economics 101 to see why this is a problem. Not raising fares during peak seasons would be the equivalent of an artificial price ceiling and all of it's known, negative consequences. There *are* airlines that *do* increase capacity based on demand. I think that Allegiant is the classic example. They buy old planes for cheap so that they can have extra capacity. I hate the airlines because they have awful service. They don't actually guarantee to get you to your destination by any specific time. They charge certain fees due to having monopolies (Fees to change your ticket to an earlier flight when there is an empty seat, come on, really). They don't plan ahead about anything except money and so they do things like leave people stuck on the tarmac for hours and threaten to call the police if you complain about it. (Yes, I've witnessed that first hand) I don't hate "unbundling" (the idea of charging for checked bags, carryon, et cetera) but they implement it in the most unfriendly way. Include your bags and food in the ticket and give you a refund for *not* using them and many people would love it. But charging more at high demand times to keep supply / demand in balance, I don't see how you can criticize a for-profit entity for doing that. And the alternative would be worse.

    9. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by careysub · · Score: 2

      Actually, airlines in the USA are generally running almost all their flights at full capacity right now. Especially the major carriers. Competition has made them run with nearly 100% load factors nearly every day of the week.

      Business travelers dominate Sunday, Monday, Friday and Saturday leaving Tuesday - Thursday for non-business travelers. Middle of the week is where the deals are now, but because they have reduced capacity so much, business travel is being squished into these days as well.

      The 2015 domestic load factor is 83.68% right now - which is indeed extremely high. Many flights are full at such a high load factor, but not all of them are. There are still "red-eyes" and other off-peak flights that have loads well below 50%, and the fact that they don't charge high fares (to cover the full cost of flying the plane) for those flights - the rates are discounted in fact - shows that the principle of some flights subsidizing others is still in place.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Demand segmentation 101 by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand.

      Demand? No. But it does make a difference based on the number of passengers: fuel costs. Last minute changes can affect carefully laid out plans.

      Simple example: My roomate used to work as a driver for a trucking company. Since fuel is expensive, the company bought it wholesale and dispensed it at their facilities. They would also plan routes so that the driver could fill up using their fuel at their facilities versus stopping at a truck-stop along the freeway, where gasoline was considerably more expensive. Everything was calculated and figured out by the computers at the main office: This truck with this much cargo traveling this route should need this much fuel, so costs will be this much, add in some profit, and we'll charge the customer x. This might be determined two weeks or more before the actual hauling happens.

      Add in unknowns--the weight of the cargo is somehow different than what they were told or there are headwinds--and, suddenly, the driver might not be able to make it on the fuel provided by the company. So the driver has to stop at the truck-stop and now that trip is going to be less profitable than before. If your margins were low enough, you might even lose money on the job.

      I don't disagree with your hypothesis, necessarily. Yes, airlines charge more for last minute flights and high-demand flights because they can. If I have 300 seats going from New York to LA and 400 people who absolutely positively have to be on that flight, I'll raise my prices until I have 300 people to sit in those seats and 100 people who say, "Nah, not worth it, I'll take a different flight." That's capitalism at work.

      But those planes that you're getting on are part of a network of other planes and routes and such that the airline manages and, yes, wants to run as profitably as possible. So, for example, imagine I'm flying 150 people and 150 empty seats from New York to LA and suddenly 150 people show up and want to get on board, I need to have the fuel to get those 150 people there. If I take it from my supply in New York--which would be cheaper--that other New York to London flight is not going to be able to fill up their tanks when they arrive from Poughkeepsie, so I'm going to need get gasoline fast for that flight. Or when our New York to LA flight lands in LA with it's extra 150 passengers, it's supposed to turn around and go to Portland. It used to have enough fuel to do that but now--with the extra weight of 150 people--it doesn't so it needs to get fuel in LA and that affects the take-off times because we didn't factor that in to the time table and now we're going to be 10 minutes late which means that the flight from Seattle to LA isn't going to have a place to unload their passengers and that's going to delay them on their next trip to Newark and...

      You start to get the idea.

  8. Its a Cook Book!!! by random+coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "To Server Customers Better"
    Its a cook book!

  9. Talked to our purchasing dept. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Informative
    They are going to follow up on this with Xerox. If it is correct, Xerox will be removed from our vendor list.

    .
    When companies are so blatant about wanting to overcharge their customers, it makes it real easy to identify them and remove the bad companies from our approved vendor list.

  10. They have their rights, can we have ours back? by l2718 · · Score: 2

    Certainly Xerox can manufacture whatever products they like. We have the right not to buy them (and, say, buy from the competition). Two remarks anyway:

    1. Doing this in secret is underhanded, and they should be upfront, Despite the negative reaction by some members of the public ("it's unfair that I'm paying more than X"), there is nothing wrong with a company trying for market segmentation. They should tell the complainers to grow up

    2. Everyone should own whatever they own. So, if I own a printer or a toner cartridge, I should have the right to modify and reprogram them however I like (say, to report a different zone or to ignore zonal coding). Courts have rebuffed Xerox and Lexmark as they attempted to use the DMCA to protect their business strategies, but the DMCA (US), Bill C-11 (Canada) and their worldwide clones still apply to DVD-players, for example. That should stop.

    1. Re:They have their rights, can we have ours back? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      You're bit of an ass-hole aren't you. Fine you like analogies, it's like a car manufacture telling you that you can only buy their make of tires, oil filter, oil, air filter, etc., it's not done that way, ever. If a 3rd party produces a replaceable component for your product then you have the right to use that part. Case closed, welcome to America.

      Another point, by tying you to a specific replacement part, it artificially raises the price sine you do not have an option to shop around. That's anti-free market.

    2. Re:They have their rights, can we have ours back? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have no right to create an artificial monopoly. ESPECIALLY do they not have any right to keep people from breaking said monopoly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. This has been going on for decades by p51d007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been in the copier/printer/fax/computer business for over 30 years. Region locking things has been going on for about that long. It first started with designing a tab, prong or other plastic part, to prevent a cartridge from working. Savin, some Lanier, Ricoh boxes are the same, but their cartridges won't fit. Toshiba, some lanier, Kyocera boxes are the same, but their toner won't fit. They use to do it with the above mentioned "break away" tabs (if you knew what to change), but that wasn't good enough, so they put a different drive gear coupling on the rear. But that wasn't good enough. Now a lot of them have either a CRM chip, or an RFID chip on the back of the cartridge that gets close enough to the one in the machine to read it. If they don't match, it won't work. In the "olden" days of dry toner copier, they did this to prevent a person from refilling the toner cartridges. With the color copiers/printers, the particle sizes have reached such a small size, and, the temperature melting points are becoming so small, that if you vary the toner or carrier just a very small amount, it makes a mess and can destroy some components. The DRM on cartridges is a PITA because if you slap a genuine new one in, and it doesn't read, it creates a service call. Sometimes, you can go in and tell it to look for the cartridge again, but if that doesn't work, you have to reject the cartridge and RMA it back to the company.

  12. Just take our money! by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Why don't they just put a gun to our heads and take our money? Fuck Xerox!

  13. Re:Nothing new here by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

    This is done all the time with disposables in medical devices.

    yes indeed, the risk of death is the same for toner cartridges and medical devices

  14. Region Locking by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So if they region lock it so we can't use the (same, but) cheaper cartridges from Eastern Europe and Asia, can we region lock it so they can't use the cheaper workers from Easter Europe and Asia?

  15. What did you expect him to say? The truth? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Yeah, we did that to ensure that we can gouge as much as possible. You see, international trade and benefiting from cheap labor abroad is only good if we can profit from it, not when it cuts into our profits."

    Seriously? Did you expect him to tell you the truth? C'mon, be reasonable.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Could be illegal? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    If any of these countries are part of the Eurozone and this is preventing someone from one part of the EU using something from another part of the EU, then Xerox will have some answering to do. EU laws, from my understanding, make this sort of thing illegal within its territory.

    If you are region locked to the whole Eurozone, then that is okay. Of course it doesn't change that this is a dick move, on the part of Xerox, IMO.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  17. toner bottles vs cartridges by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps, but it's a choice by printer companies to save money and simplify maintenance. It'd be a bit like if lawnmowers had a combined sump/oil filter that came pre-filled with oil. Nice, simple, and quick to replace. But perhaps the filter lasts longer than the oil, or vice versa.

    In a big printer, like a car or riding lawnmower, having them be separate makes sense. Diesel Trucks(and I'm not talking pickups here), often have different maintenance intervals for their filters and oil. For that matter, they'll often TEST their oil to make sure it's still good, because testing makes financial sense when you're looking at a 40 quart oil change vs a 5 quart one. In many cases they'll replace the oil filter only, pour in a new quart of oil to replace the oil lost in the filter, and keep on going.

    When it comes to cartridges, there's 'usually' 1-3 components. Toner, drum, and waste toner storage. The problem you can get with remanufactured ones is if the toner (2k pages) is put into a heavily recycled cartridge without also replacing the drum (~40k pages) and emptying the waste toner.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  18. Language Problem by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The release was written in Neuspeak, invented first for banks and hotels in the mid-twentieth century.

    In neuspeak, "for your convenience" really means "for our profit."

    "For your safety" means "For our convenience."

    Neuspeak is spreading slowly to other industries, as well, but its form and syntax were perfected when used on a sign on a shuttered bank office in Sycamore, Ohio, which read: "For your convenience, this branch is closed."