4 ms·

>So why do printer companies charge so much for ink? Because they can. Because they have merged with or bought most of their competitors. Because they have weap

by jasode 2y ago

>So why do printer companies charge so much for ink? Because they can. Because they have merged with or bought most of their competitors. Because they have weaponized laws to make it illegal for you to modify your printer, or for rivals to make ink cartridges that work with it. Because they can send updates to your printer whenever they want, not just to add features or protect your security, but to steal functionality from you. I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances. The inkjet printer manufacturers are using a "razor and blades" business model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model The blog's paragraph could have also mentioned that aspect and as a bonus, also educated readers enough to generalize the business practice and later "pattern match" on similar scenarios such as "cheap mobile phones" that are locked down with 2 year contracts. I.e. "teach a man to fish ... yada yada"

the_snooze 2y ago
Yeah, the econoomics of this market explains it all. Printers are a commodity; you really can't differentiate one from another, so it's a race to the bottom on prices. But it still costs money to make+ship them at high enough volume to take advantage of economies of scale. The only way you can play in this market is by being large enough to sell the printer at a loss and recouping money on recurring supplies/subscriptions on the back end.
- adamc 2y ago
  Which, ironically, creates economics that encourage people to buy printers and then not use them (much). An industry built around selling you things you will then not want to use is an industry with big problems. It works for razor blades because we need to shave regardless -- yes, you could chose to have a beard, but short of that, demand is constant. For printing, that just isn't true. And I print much less than I once did.
krisoft 2y ago
> I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances. But this is the underlying economics and finances. They can use a "razor and blades" business model because of all the things mentioned in the text you quoted. If they didn't do those things I could just order from amazon a cheap ink for their cheap printers from a rival and they would either go bankrupt or need to sell printers closer to what they make them for. But you can't because they made it illegal for the rivals to create those cheap ink cartridges. In fact talking about "Razor and blades model" obscures this fact, not illuminates it.
- jajko 2y ago
  ... which is exactly "Razor and blades model", not sure whats your problem with this apt comparison. People would like to buy as cheap as possible. That's unfortunately incompatible with printers business model (marketing + cheap initial printer + necessary sales later to bring in the actual profits). As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted, and end users won't win long term in such scenario. So I don't really get the issue, its so hard to grok that you pay for continuous package? Why would companies building ecosystem let anybody who bankrupts them in? Apple also fights tooth and nail to keep their app store one and only monopoly. Or go elsewhere, ie I have Brother printer, not stellar but good enough, official cartridge costs 1/2 to 1/3 of cost of whole new printer. Seems very reasonable to me and I am happy to pay those 50 bucks once every year or two. I also buy official batteries when replacing in say phone, absolutely 0 point testing stuff thats marginally cheaper and of famous 'chinese quality'. I am old enough and rich enough to understand that I am definitely not rich enough to buy cheap junk just and exactly because its cheap.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted Or they'd adjust and charge the real price for the printer? We won't end up in a world with literally 0 printer manufacturers. People still need printers.
    - 2y ago
rsynnott 2y ago
I mean, the fact that the manufacturers can make the use of third party ink very difficult is absolutely vital to making the razor-and-blades style economics work; once they've done that it kinda follows naturally, but it's an absolute prerequisite.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances. Economics and finances are inherently simply a different way of stating "us vs them". Just because the predatory behavior is studied in business school doesn't make it less predatory. Same with finance.
dh2022 2y ago
I think this comment obscures the nature of how user hostile printer companies are. Razor and Blades strategy was meant to be user-friendly: you cannot afford to pay the full cost upfront for a fancy razor, so you will pay it on time. What printer companies are doing is user hostile, not user friendly.
johnea 2y ago
Let's understand the underlying economics: Do they want to make more money, or less money? hmm... The answer to why it's so expensive (applies to pretty much everything, not just printer ink) is: Because it can be. Price and cost have almost nothing to do with one another. The manufacturer will charge as much as they can make people pay. I mean, if HP shareholders weren't going to reap returns, why would people ever print anything to start with?

by jasode 2y ago

the_snooze 2y ago

Yeah, the econoomics of this market explains it all. Printers are a commodity; you really can't differentiate one from another, so it's a race to the bottom on prices. But it still costs money to make+ship them at high enough volume to take advantage of economies of scale. The only way you can play in this market is by being large enough to sell the printer at a loss and recouping money on recurring supplies/subscriptions on the back end.

adamc 2y ago
Which, ironically, creates economics that encourage people to buy printers and then not use them (much). An industry built around selling you things you will then not want to use is an industry with big problems. It works for razor blades because we need to shave regardless -- yes, you could chose to have a beard, but short of that, demand is constant. For printing, that just isn't true. And I print much less than I once did.

krisoft 2y ago

> I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances. But this is the underlying economics and finances. They can use a "razor and blades" business model because of all the things mentioned in the text you quoted. If they didn't do those things I could just order from amazon a cheap ink for their cheap printers from a rival and they would either go bankrupt or need to sell printers closer to what they make them for. But you can't because they made it illegal for the rivals to create those cheap ink cartridges. In fact talking about "Razor and blades model" obscures this fact, not illuminates it.

jajko 2y ago
... which is exactly "Razor and blades model", not sure whats your problem with this apt comparison. People would like to buy as cheap as possible. That's unfortunately incompatible with printers business model (marketing + cheap initial printer + necessary sales later to bring in the actual profits). As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted, and end users won't win long term in such scenario. So I don't really get the issue, its so hard to grok that you pay for continuous package? Why would companies building ecosystem let anybody who bankrupts them in? Apple also fights tooth and nail to keep their app store one and only monopoly. Or go elsewhere, ie I have Brother printer, not stellar but good enough, official cartridge costs 1/2 to 1/3 of cost of whole new printer. Seems very reasonable to me and I am happy to pay those 50 bucks once every year or two. I also buy official batteries when replacing in say phone, absolutely 0 point testing stuff thats marginally cheaper and of famous 'chinese quality'. I am old enough and rich enough to understand that I am definitely not rich enough to buy cheap junk just and exactly because its cheap.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted Or they'd adjust and charge the real price for the printer? We won't end up in a world with literally 0 printer manufacturers. People still need printers.
  - 2y ago

rsynnott 2y ago

I mean, the fact that the manufacturers can make the use of third party ink very difficult is absolutely vital to making the razor-and-blades style economics work; once they've done that it kinda follows naturally, but it's an absolute prerequisite.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances. Economics and finances are inherently simply a different way of stating "us vs them". Just because the predatory behavior is studied in business school doesn't make it less predatory. Same with finance.

dh2022 2y ago

I think this comment obscures the nature of how user hostile printer companies are. Razor and Blades strategy was meant to be user-friendly: you cannot afford to pay the full cost upfront for a fancy razor, so you will pay it on time. What printer companies are doing is user hostile, not user friendly.

johnea 2y ago

Let's understand the underlying economics: Do they want to make more money, or less money? hmm... The answer to why it's so expensive (applies to pretty much everything, not just printer ink) is: Because it can be. Price and cost have almost nothing to do with one another. The manufacturer will charge as much as they can make people pay. I mean, if HP shareholders weren't going to reap returns, why would people ever print anything to start with?