3 ms·

> every time a customer buys a printer, it’s an investment for us. We’re investing [in] that customer, and if this customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use

> every time a customer buys a printer, it’s an investment for us. We’re investing [in] that customer, and if this customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies, it’s a bad investment This is the problem. If they stopped trying to loss lead the printers, and just sold them for a healthy margin above cost of production, this whole issue would go away.

AlbertCory 3y ago
I was about to flag this BS, but you did it for me. Do you have any numbers for their gross margin on the printers? Because if it's not negative, then his "investment" claim is indeed BS.
mc32 3y ago
It's like safety razors and razorblades. At this point, if they brought up the price to reflect production costs, their competitors would eat their lunch because most people would gravitate to the loss leader. Only people who do TCO would buy the long-run cheaper option, just like most people buy cheap clothing rather than something that will last.
- kevincox 3y ago
  We have energy labels on major appliances that help people estimate the long-term cost of ownership. Maybe this needs to be extended to printers and razors.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  People are assuming the printers (or razors) are actually unprofitable, just by themselves. That's possible, and there are "loss leaders" in industries and in retail, but I'd like to see the proof. Maybe the printer refills make it a great business and the printers alone are merely a good business?
lp0_on_fire 3y ago
This guy seems to have it backwards. We, as end users (the argument may be different for B2B) are the ones making the investment here. I’m purchasing a printer with the hope that it spits out pages reliably with as few jams as possible for a reasonable price. As I get older I’m starting to think that we need to regulate this whole “sell things at a loss in order to maximize profits at a future date” phenomenon. Not that I have any idea what such a regulatory scheme would look like…
- brewdad 3y ago
  At this point I’m not sure that regulated world wouldn’t end with us providing the seller with a healthy profit at the time of purchase AND a healthy profit with overpriced refills.
- Lio 3y ago
  Nah, he’s got it right unfortunately. A printer is never an “investment”, it’s always a “liability” because it won’t increase in value if you sell it. A printer customer, however, is an asset because HP can always use new dirty tricks to squeeze more money out of you over time. It’s a pedantic difference but it gets to the heart of how these MBA sociopaths see their customers; something to gouge.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Maybe the right to repair movement can get us to a world where printers are legally forbidden from not working with third-party supplies, and then the loss leader strategy becomes too risky to sustain (too few people would stick to HP ink).

AlbertCory 3y ago

I was about to flag this BS, but you did it for me. Do you have any numbers for their gross margin on the printers? Because if it's not negative, then his "investment" claim is indeed BS.

mc32 3y ago

It's like safety razors and razorblades. At this point, if they brought up the price to reflect production costs, their competitors would eat their lunch because most people would gravitate to the loss leader. Only people who do TCO would buy the long-run cheaper option, just like most people buy cheap clothing rather than something that will last.

kevincox 3y ago
We have energy labels on major appliances that help people estimate the long-term cost of ownership. Maybe this needs to be extended to printers and razors.
AlbertCory 3y ago
People are assuming the printers (or razors) are actually unprofitable, just by themselves. That's possible, and there are "loss leaders" in industries and in retail, but I'd like to see the proof. Maybe the printer refills make it a great business and the printers alone are merely a good business?

lp0_on_fire 3y ago

This guy seems to have it backwards. We, as end users (the argument may be different for B2B) are the ones making the investment here. I’m purchasing a printer with the hope that it spits out pages reliably with as few jams as possible for a reasonable price. As I get older I’m starting to think that we need to regulate this whole “sell things at a loss in order to maximize profits at a future date” phenomenon. Not that I have any idea what such a regulatory scheme would look like…

brewdad 3y ago
At this point I’m not sure that regulated world wouldn’t end with us providing the seller with a healthy profit at the time of purchase AND a healthy profit with overpriced refills.
Lio 3y ago
Nah, he’s got it right unfortunately. A printer is never an “investment”, it’s always a “liability” because it won’t increase in value if you sell it. A printer customer, however, is an asset because HP can always use new dirty tricks to squeeze more money out of you over time. It’s a pedantic difference but it gets to the heart of how these MBA sociopaths see their customers; something to gouge.
yencabulator 3y ago
Maybe the right to repair movement can get us to a world where printers are legally forbidden from not working with third-party supplies, and then the loss leader strategy becomes too risky to sustain (too few people would stick to HP ink).