4 ms·

Did you see the price tag? This device is super cheap for what it is, same as inkjet printers are. It's easier to sell a $50 printer and recover your losses thr

by tinco 4y ago

Did you see the price tag? This device is super cheap for what it is, same as inkjet printers are. It's easier to sell a $50 printer and recover your losses through ink, than it is to sell a $200 printer. You could solve the "system" by regulating that companies are not allowed to sell products at a loss, but that would be unamerican.

spiffytech 4y ago
> You could solve the "system" by regulating that companies are not allowed to sell products at a loss, but that would be unamerican. To memory, Nintendo is the only console maker that turns a profit on the hardware (which is part of why their hardware specs are always outdated). Sony & Microsoft don't turn a profit until you buy ~3 games. I think people would be surprised at how often products are sold at a loss.
- tinco 4y ago
  Definitely, this is also why the "this is unamerican" (meaning of course the argument is against free market) is not an unjustified argument. It is very likely that inkjet printers have become much better due to inkjet printer manufacturers being able to compete much better having such an effective marketing strategy. Buying these devices is effectively the same as taking out a small loan, that you're repaying by buying the games/cartridges, and it's a well known fact that loans leverage economies. I wonder if some day we'll have a less intrusive ways of establishing these micro loans to enable consumers access to excellent technology. Inkjet printers, this tiny dishwasher, the Sony Playstation 4, they're all incredible devices that people get through this scheme. It's not just that the price is spread out by the way, a consumer could easily achieve that by using a credit card, but also the consumer is shielded from a bit of risk. If that $50 inkjet printer turns out to be shit they can simply not buy any cartridges for it, and won't be out $200 bucks on it.
javajosh 4y ago
Anthropomorphising companies is a trap. I mean, it's a trap that SCOTUS fell into, but still. Companies are more like organisms in nature, responding to incentives in a mindless way. Just as it seems foolish to hate a tapeworm for its 'exploitative' life-cycle, it seems foolish to hate this kind of business model, or any other. Are herbavores really the only good animals, and farmers the only good workers? I find that hard to accept. It's almost impossible to judge good or evil, especially in the long run. Consider that mitochondria probably started out as an infection, or a parasite. Your gut flora, too. Not to mention all the weird ways ecosystems interlock, until its no longer clear who's exploiting whom. (That said, I think it's reasonable to want to live in Mayberry, but its highly unfair when the only people who get to live there are the ones who make the rest of the world Hamsterdam.)

by tinco 4y ago

spiffytech 4y ago

> You could solve the "system" by regulating that companies are not allowed to sell products at a loss, but that would be unamerican. To memory, Nintendo is the only console maker that turns a profit on the hardware (which is part of why their hardware specs are always outdated). Sony & Microsoft don't turn a profit until you buy ~3 games. I think people would be surprised at how often products are sold at a loss.

tinco 4y ago
Definitely, this is also why the "this is unamerican" (meaning of course the argument is against free market) is not an unjustified argument. It is very likely that inkjet printers have become much better due to inkjet printer manufacturers being able to compete much better having such an effective marketing strategy. Buying these devices is effectively the same as taking out a small loan, that you're repaying by buying the games/cartridges, and it's a well known fact that loans leverage economies. I wonder if some day we'll have a less intrusive ways of establishing these micro loans to enable consumers access to excellent technology. Inkjet printers, this tiny dishwasher, the Sony Playstation 4, they're all incredible devices that people get through this scheme. It's not just that the price is spread out by the way, a consumer could easily achieve that by using a credit card, but also the consumer is shielded from a bit of risk. If that $50 inkjet printer turns out to be shit they can simply not buy any cartridges for it, and won't be out $200 bucks on it.

javajosh 4y ago

Anthropomorphising companies is a trap. I mean, it's a trap that SCOTUS fell into, but still. Companies are more like organisms in nature, responding to incentives in a mindless way. Just as it seems foolish to hate a tapeworm for its 'exploitative' life-cycle, it seems foolish to hate this kind of business model, or any other. Are herbavores really the only good animals, and farmers the only good workers? I find that hard to accept. It's almost impossible to judge good or evil, especially in the long run. Consider that mitochondria probably started out as an infection, or a parasite. Your gut flora, too. Not to mention all the weird ways ecosystems interlock, until its no longer clear who's exploiting whom. (That said, I think it's reasonable to want to live in Mayberry, but its highly unfair when the only people who get to live there are the ones who make the rest of the world Hamsterdam.)