Digital BW, The Print

For what it's worth, here is my take on this.  The management of business
corporations, especially publicly-held companies, is charged with making a
profit.  Operating ethically means operating within the law and
administrative rules.  It is entirely possible that management may decide to
reduce the cost of consumables, thinking that will result in a volume
increase.  I doubt it would ever be done for altruistic reasons, assuming
management wishes to remain employed.  I would hate to see any movement
here, as some have suggested,  towards a law restricting companies from
employing their marketing strategy of choice, instead of letting the
marketplace take care of it.  Then there probably wouldn't be an Epson
printer at all, at least like we have now.  There is even a fairly strong
trend of companies going to Sun Office ($86 for five licenses) instead of MS
Office (mucho more under the new pricing structure).

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Chipped carts, good for most of us


>
>
> 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]
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>