Digital BW, The Print

Bob_Michaels wrote:

>Printer manufacturers have to recover their development and production
>costs plus some profit from the total sales of both printers and
>supplies. 
>
<SNIP>

OK, let's talk ETHICS instead of $$ in your pocket... Since using $ as a 
measure of ethics gets us ENRON etc..  The fact is that a market with 
pricing skewed to have artificially low printer costs (to entice buyers) 
and artificially high consumable costs is less than ethical.  Imagine if 
people purchased automobiles with no idea what their gas mileage might 
be until they actually got to running the car. (Analogous because, 
unlike gasoline, printer companies have fought the commodification of 
inks)  R&D is then funded, yes, by the consumable sales.

But, just because a certain business model personally gives me the best 
return on my cash does not mean I feel it is ethical OR, more clearly, 
that it is "good for most of us."

Taken to extremes in your scenario, for example, chipping would be full 
proof against using third party inks in your machine. Surely that would 
BETTER ensure the recovery of R&D expenses by EPSON, HP, Lexmark, et 
al..  This process is called "tying," and traditionally it is seen as 
anti-competitive and a restraint of trade. Why?

I'll give a few simple examples..

Well, first, vendors with an established supply chain are inordinately 
favored to the detriment of new entries into the market.  You cannot 
successfully pursue such a path UNLESS you have the financial resources 
and margin to absorb the initial pricing costs to then allow you to sell 
the printer at a below market value price..  This kind of dumping 
becomes a way to clear the market of competition and restrict the 
suppliers to a small established few.  That disadvantages us all. 
 That's why this kind of tying and cross-subsidization becomes more 
disfavored as a particular product's market penetration increases.  It 
creates a situation where pricing does not drop in accord with what 
should be attendant commodification. Instead, that inefficient pricing 
structure is artificially supported  by a cartelization of sorts..

Secondly, consumers are misled by low entry costs but inordinate 
continuing operational costs.  It's an inefficient way to manage what 
should be straightforward distributions of resources.  Someone buys an 
$80 printer to find out each of two cartridges lists for over $50... 
 With automobiles as an example again, consumers can fairly estimate 
operational costs.  With printers the data is purposely deceptive on 
that point.. It's as if someone promised you a free car, you think the 
deal is great and take the car.  Suddenly, you find that you can use 
only the OEM brand of gasoline at $30 a gallon...!  What may have looked 
like a great deal was simply a shell game.

Thirdly, these artificial supports encourage short-cutting and are more 
likely to result in problems like the "orange-shift" (incomplete R&D), 
and "consumable QC problems or whatever, as we have seen with EEM." 
 When your competition on a commodity is artificially restricted, the 
level of innovation and pace of innovation slackens, it's a proven 
economic fact.

So, the current strategy REALLY benefits ONLY those happiest with 
today's level of technology, who are going to buy current printers, and 
use non-OEM inks and non-OEM papers.  The vast majority of users don't 
fall into that subset by any means.

I shall assume, since you say that you are happy with the current state, 
you won't need to upgrade to other printers as the technology improves? 
 If not, then you should be against the cost-shifting, simply because it 
slows technological progress AND limits the numbers of entrants with 
potentially innovative products - neither is a positive in a true free 
market..

THe OEM firms have had quite enough time to apply this business model. 
 Just as copier manufacturers had to abandon it as copiers became 
ubiquitous, so will inkjet manufacturers be forced to adjust as inkjets 
are becoming similarly common.  

Do I benefit from the current situation? YES.. Does that mean I think it 
is RIGHT and should continue? NO..

I'm a white/anglo American.   Might I have benefited more in a society 
where racial/gender equality were not goals and affirmative action had 
not been fact?  Probably so...  and I'm not putting printer inks and 
paper on the level of racial equality... what I am doing is pointing out 
that overall ethics in the marketplace can encourage us to be monetarily 
altruistic in the short term for long-term general benefits to the 
market or the community at large..

Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 


{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]