3 ms·

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 thi

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/

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/