5 ms·

You got a dirt cheap printer because you're paying with supplies. Printer heads are the normal price.

woliveirajr 7y ago
And that's why there are anti-dumping laws. And I assure you it wasn't the cheap version of the printer....
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> You got a dirt cheap printer because you're paying with supplies. Give me one good reason why this particular business model - base subsidized by consumables - shouldn't be straight up banned. I can't think of any.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Freedom of choice on consumers and suppliers. Why should supermarkets be able to offer discounted products, sometimes below their cost, as loss-leaders to get people into the store? Why should airlines be allowed to give away free flights via frequent flier programs? If Gillette wants to sell me a $5 razor handle for $2 because it can only use $1 blades from them, why should that be barred as an offer on their part that I accept?
  - quanticle 7y ago
    Because it causes massive unsustainable externalities when that business model is applied by many firms across the economy as a whole? The only reason that manufacturers can get away with planned obsolescence is because they don't have to pay any disposal fees to recycle/remanufacture their equipment. If they took a hit to their bottom line every time a consumer threw out their product, I'm willing to be they'd design products to be a lot more durable and repairable.
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      ... how much do you think device disposal actually costs?
      - quanticle 7y ago
        Depends on what you mean by "disposal". I'm talking about a system where no part of the device ends up in a landfill, much like what we have with car batteries today.
      - laughinghan 7y ago
        ex·ter·nal·i·ty noun a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved (emphasis added) https://www.google.com/search?q=define+externality https://www.google.com/search?q=define+externality
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Oh wow, thanks. They must not have covered that topic in all of the Economics classes I took in college. Thank goodness you were here to regurgitate the definition of such a basic concept to me on this fateful day. I will be forever grateful.
        laughinghan 7y ago
        I was clarifying. Interesting that you clearly read this and the other reply yet you don't have a substantive response.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Because it’s silly. The cost of disposing of or recycling a cell phone is negligible compared to its margins. What are the margins on an iPhone?
- noelsusman 7y ago
  It's cheaper for most people.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Not in the long run, and not if you account for externalities dumped on society in form of trash, which follow naturally when price-sensitive customers try to game this business model.
- jeffchien 7y ago
  By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges? Keurigs and their cartridges? Or are you just concerned with printers, or base things that you consider fragile and wasteful? Where would you draw the line? I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising. It would be nice if there were aggregate stats on the fragility/lifetime of consumer printers, and maybe all consumer electronics in general.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges? Not necessarily. But filters are cheap pieces of plastics, whereas the whole magic is in the cartridges, so the pricing structure seems OK. > Keurigs and their cartridges? Definitely. Keurig deserves to be dissolved for DRMing coffee and for being an ecological disaster. > I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising. I had consumer inkjets break on me as often as they run out of ink. And for everyone I know, even in my family, the result was always the same: if basic maintenance like cleaning and re-cleaning heads and banging a bit with a fist didn't work, the printer went to trash and a new one was bought. To be clear, I'm not against consumables in general. I'm against selling a product way below costs, hoping to recoup the subsidy through inflated pricing of consumables. I feel it's an unfair practice and that it promotes wastefulness and negative ecological externalities.
    - jeffchien 7y ago
      I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems difficult to draw the line about what kind of business model you're trying to ban. How would you legislate the difference between water filters and inkjet printers? Even though yes, most of the nontrivial stuff is in the filters themselves, I would think the filter jug is subsidized in some form by the filter, no matter how small the amount. Another example: Sony sold the PS3 at a loss and recouped the cost through games [1]. If you're concerned about the ecological cost, I think it's better to ban items based on ecological cost (when considering durability and whether it's consumed once or repeatedly) directly. There's no sense in banning certain good printers if they're actually durable. Even your concern with Keurig is not really caused by their base item, but the consumable, right? I think that's the current trend we're following with plastic bags and straws anyway. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/
- brandonmenc 7y ago
  Because I print like ten pages a year, and I'd rather not have to drop half a grand or more on a printer like in the old days just for that.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    If you print ten pages a year, I'd rather you go to a print shop instead of being yet another person whose inkjet printer will end up in a landfill in a year.
    - antisemiotic 7y ago
      Or buy a laser printer, they don't seem to mind sitting on a shelf for years.
    - brandonmenc 7y ago
      I have a cheap laser printer that will probably last me years. Also, what's the carbon footprint of driving to Kinkos ten times a year vs a printer?
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Laser printers aren't subsidized in this way AFAIK; the subthread here is about the inkjet printer business.
        brandonmenc 7y ago
        Honestly, what's the diff re: sustainability? There's not a huge difference in how long either type lasts at that price point afaik.
noisem4ker 7y ago
That's strange. Judging from what I know about Canon and HP printers, the cheapest models often use integrated cartridges and print heads, both replaced when the ink runs out, while more expensive models have them separated and only replace cartridges. I guess the cost of print heads can vary wildly depending on quality, from pennies to more than what the printers themselves are sold for.

And that's why there are anti-dumping laws. And I assure you it wasn't the cheap version of the printer....

> You got a dirt cheap printer because you're paying with supplies. Give me one good reason why this particular business model - base subsidized by consumables - shouldn't be straight up banned. I can't think of any.

sokoloff 7y ago
Freedom of choice on consumers and suppliers. Why should supermarkets be able to offer discounted products, sometimes below their cost, as loss-leaders to get people into the store? Why should airlines be allowed to give away free flights via frequent flier programs? If Gillette wants to sell me a $5 razor handle for $2 because it can only use $1 blades from them, why should that be barred as an offer on their part that I accept?
- quanticle 7y ago
  Because it causes massive unsustainable externalities when that business model is applied by many firms across the economy as a whole? The only reason that manufacturers can get away with planned obsolescence is because they don't have to pay any disposal fees to recycle/remanufacture their equipment. If they took a hit to their bottom line every time a consumer threw out their product, I'm willing to be they'd design products to be a lot more durable and repairable.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    ... how much do you think device disposal actually costs?
    - quanticle 7y ago
      Depends on what you mean by "disposal". I'm talking about a system where no part of the device ends up in a landfill, much like what we have with car batteries today.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      ex·ter·nal·i·ty noun a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved (emphasis added) https://www.google.com/search?q=define+externality https://www.google.com/search?q=define+externality
      - cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Oh wow, thanks. They must not have covered that topic in all of the Economics classes I took in college. Thank goodness you were here to regurgitate the definition of such a basic concept to me on this fateful day. I will be forever grateful.
        laughinghan 7y ago
        I was clarifying. Interesting that you clearly read this and the other reply yet you don't have a substantive response.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Because it’s silly. The cost of disposing of or recycling a cell phone is negligible compared to its margins. What are the margins on an iPhone?
noelsusman 7y ago
It's cheaper for most people.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Not in the long run, and not if you account for externalities dumped on society in form of trash, which follow naturally when price-sensitive customers try to game this business model.
jeffchien 7y ago
By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges? Keurigs and their cartridges? Or are you just concerned with printers, or base things that you consider fragile and wasteful? Where would you draw the line? I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising. It would be nice if there were aggregate stats on the fragility/lifetime of consumer printers, and maybe all consumer electronics in general.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > By extension, are you proposing a ban on water filters and filter cartridges? Not necessarily. But filters are cheap pieces of plastics, whereas the whole magic is in the cartridges, so the pricing structure seems OK. > Keurigs and their cartridges? Definitely. Keurig deserves to be dissolved for DRMing coffee and for being an ecological disaster. > I don't think I've ever had one of my consumer printers break (and I use third-party ink so I'm not even subsidizing them in the end), so the extremity of this argument is surprising. I had consumer inkjets break on me as often as they run out of ink. And for everyone I know, even in my family, the result was always the same: if basic maintenance like cleaning and re-cleaning heads and banging a bit with a fist didn't work, the printer went to trash and a new one was bought. To be clear, I'm not against consumables in general. I'm against selling a product way below costs, hoping to recoup the subsidy through inflated pricing of consumables. I feel it's an unfair practice and that it promotes wastefulness and negative ecological externalities.
  - jeffchien 7y ago
    I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems difficult to draw the line about what kind of business model you're trying to ban. How would you legislate the difference between water filters and inkjet printers? Even though yes, most of the nontrivial stuff is in the filters themselves, I would think the filter jug is subsidized in some form by the filter, no matter how small the amount. Another example: Sony sold the PS3 at a loss and recouped the cost through games [1]. If you're concerned about the ecological cost, I think it's better to ban items based on ecological cost (when considering durability and whether it's consumed once or repeatedly) directly. There's no sense in banning certain good printers if they're actually durable. Even your concern with Keurig is not really caused by their base item, but the consumable, right? I think that's the current trend we're following with plastic bags and straws anyway. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/
brandonmenc 7y ago
Because I print like ten pages a year, and I'd rather not have to drop half a grand or more on a printer like in the old days just for that.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  If you print ten pages a year, I'd rather you go to a print shop instead of being yet another person whose inkjet printer will end up in a landfill in a year.
  - antisemiotic 7y ago
    Or buy a laser printer, they don't seem to mind sitting on a shelf for years.
  - brandonmenc 7y ago
    I have a cheap laser printer that will probably last me years. Also, what's the carbon footprint of driving to Kinkos ten times a year vs a printer?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Laser printers aren't subsidized in this way AFAIK; the subthread here is about the inkjet printer business.
      - brandonmenc 7y ago
        Honestly, what's the diff re: sustainability? There's not a huge difference in how long either type lasts at that price point afaik.

noisem4ker 7y ago

That's strange. Judging from what I know about Canon and HP printers, the cheapest models often use integrated cartridges and print heads, both replaced when the ink runs out, while more expensive models have them separated and only replace cartridges. I guess the cost of print heads can vary wildly depending on quality, from pennies to more than what the printers themselves are sold for.