3 ms·
>is that you DON'T own the cartridge and you DON'T pay for the cartridge. You pay for printed pages. >pay the minimal 2USD for it (if I exceed the monthly prin
by grawprog 7y ago
>is that you DON'T own the cartridge and you DON'T pay for the cartridge. You pay for printed pages.
>pay the minimal 2USD for it (if I exceed the monthly printable 50 pages, I get another 10p/$1, or upgrade my subscription. Unused quota accumulates up to 100p), and I get a monthly email about the detailed pricing.
This model doesn't make sense to me. Why are you paying by the page and not by the amount of ink actually used?
That's like paying for internet by the number of webpages you visit as opposed to the bandwidth you use.
The ink is the product you are using. Unless they're supplying the paper too? It makes sense to charge by the page in a place like Staples or something, but as a subscription for a home printer it seems ridiculous to pay by the page.
- CharlesW 7y ago> The ink is the product you are using. You can think of the ink as an implementation detail. With this model you're paying for a capability that happens to be priced on a per-page basis. That's simpler/more understandable for most people than pricing by, say, ink volume. Yes, this can seem very strange, and it won't make sense for everybody.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- toast0 7y agoIt's charge by the page because it's a simple metric that everyone will understand. Mostly, people aren't printing full coverage (unless it's photos), because it makes the paper soggy. Postage is probably a bigger cost than ink for HP here; especially for lower volume users who need new cartridges based on time rather than volume.