3 ms·

I love that the author took the time to collect and plot his own data. And this was 2020? In 3 years my washing machine should be able to do this.

floren 2y ago
Instead, in 3 years your washing machine will refuse to run if your Tide Pods subscription runs out, or if you attempt to use bootleg pods.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Sounds like a good idea really. If consumers are dumb enough to buy such machines, then that's what they should get. It's just like the inkjet scam: people have been buying these stupid things for decades, despite the ready availability of far-superior laser printers, just because the inkjets have a slightly lower initial price. After this much time, it's really hard for me to feel any kind of sympathy for the people scammed by the inkjet printer industry.
  - al_borland 2y ago
    > If consumers are dumb enough to buy such machines, then that's what they should get. In some markets they don't have much of a choice. I want a dumb TV, but good luck finding one without looking into digital signage, where it might not have built in speakers. The costs start rising extremely quickly to buy based on principle. > inkjets have a slightly lower initial price Most people shop on price. But it's not just the initial price, it's also the toner. I just looked up a color laser printer vs inkjet. 2 random ones near the top of Amazon's results. Laser: $249 + $155 for more toner (Brother printer and toner) InkJet: $199 + $22 for more ink (Epson ecotank with generic ink) Or.. InkJet: $70 + $35 for more ink (HP printer with HP ink) People are going to see this and think they can by a new printer for the price of just getting new toner for the laser. The key, as I'm sure you know, is the yield on the laser refill is 3,000 sheets vs the HP's ~100 sheets. But the ink on the ecotank refill is claiming 7,500 sheets. So do they want to pay $155 for 3,000 or $22 for 7,500? It's not so cut and dry and very few people care enough about printers to look that closely into it. They are busy with other stuff.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >It's not so cut and dry and very few people care enough about printers to look that closely into it. They are busy with other stuff. The problem I've seen is that, even when you try to tell these not-so-knowledgeable people about this stuff and point out how they can save money with better choices, they really don't want to hear it. >But the ink on the ecotank refill is claiming 7,500 sheets. So do they want to pay $155 for 3,000 or $22 for 7,500? That's not what they're buying though: they're buying the HP, not the ecotank printer. >In some markets they don't have much of a choice. I want a dumb TV This is true: your choices are shaped by the choices of all the other consumers, because the whole reason you can buy a huge 65" TV for $750 and not $75,000 is because of massive quantities of scale. Mfgrs can only offer so many different models cost-effectively, so they make stuff that consumers will buy. Given a choice between a smart TV that lets them watch Netflix/YouTube without any extra hardware at all, or a dumb TV that doesn't and needs an additional device (and remote control), and similar prices for the two (thanks to the mfgrs getting subsidies from advertisers on the smart TVs), 99% of the consumers are going to pick the smart TV. At least with laser printers, there's enough consumers out there who demand home/small office laser printers that there's plenty of choices for them, and consumer-friendly prices. But there's still tons of people who go for the $70 POS HP with absurdly-priced 100-page refills. The digital signage devices probably suck for watching movies too, if you care at all about color accuracy. Those devices aren't meant for watching 4k movies at home for a few hours per day, they're meant for displaying public information in public areas with possibly bright (or even natural) lighting, and doing so 24x7.
- devnullbrain 2y ago
  Just thinking a washing machine bought in 2027 will be able to last long enough to track data for another 3 years is optimistic.

floren 2y ago

Instead, in 3 years your washing machine will refuse to run if your Tide Pods subscription runs out, or if you attempt to use bootleg pods.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Sounds like a good idea really. If consumers are dumb enough to buy such machines, then that's what they should get. It's just like the inkjet scam: people have been buying these stupid things for decades, despite the ready availability of far-superior laser printers, just because the inkjets have a slightly lower initial price. After this much time, it's really hard for me to feel any kind of sympathy for the people scammed by the inkjet printer industry.
- al_borland 2y ago
  > If consumers are dumb enough to buy such machines, then that's what they should get. In some markets they don't have much of a choice. I want a dumb TV, but good luck finding one without looking into digital signage, where it might not have built in speakers. The costs start rising extremely quickly to buy based on principle. > inkjets have a slightly lower initial price Most people shop on price. But it's not just the initial price, it's also the toner. I just looked up a color laser printer vs inkjet. 2 random ones near the top of Amazon's results. Laser: $249 + $155 for more toner (Brother printer and toner) InkJet: $199 + $22 for more ink (Epson ecotank with generic ink) Or.. InkJet: $70 + $35 for more ink (HP printer with HP ink) People are going to see this and think they can by a new printer for the price of just getting new toner for the laser. The key, as I'm sure you know, is the yield on the laser refill is 3,000 sheets vs the HP's ~100 sheets. But the ink on the ecotank refill is claiming 7,500 sheets. So do they want to pay $155 for 3,000 or $22 for 7,500? It's not so cut and dry and very few people care enough about printers to look that closely into it. They are busy with other stuff.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >It's not so cut and dry and very few people care enough about printers to look that closely into it. They are busy with other stuff. The problem I've seen is that, even when you try to tell these not-so-knowledgeable people about this stuff and point out how they can save money with better choices, they really don't want to hear it. >But the ink on the ecotank refill is claiming 7,500 sheets. So do they want to pay $155 for 3,000 or $22 for 7,500? That's not what they're buying though: they're buying the HP, not the ecotank printer. >In some markets they don't have much of a choice. I want a dumb TV This is true: your choices are shaped by the choices of all the other consumers, because the whole reason you can buy a huge 65" TV for $750 and not $75,000 is because of massive quantities of scale. Mfgrs can only offer so many different models cost-effectively, so they make stuff that consumers will buy. Given a choice between a smart TV that lets them watch Netflix/YouTube without any extra hardware at all, or a dumb TV that doesn't and needs an additional device (and remote control), and similar prices for the two (thanks to the mfgrs getting subsidies from advertisers on the smart TVs), 99% of the consumers are going to pick the smart TV. At least with laser printers, there's enough consumers out there who demand home/small office laser printers that there's plenty of choices for them, and consumer-friendly prices. But there's still tons of people who go for the $70 POS HP with absurdly-priced 100-page refills. The digital signage devices probably suck for watching movies too, if you care at all about color accuracy. Those devices aren't meant for watching 4k movies at home for a few hours per day, they're meant for displaying public information in public areas with possibly bright (or even natural) lighting, and doing so 24x7.
devnullbrain 2y ago
Just thinking a washing machine bought in 2027 will be able to last long enough to track data for another 3 years is optimistic.