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]

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/
>
>

Keith:

Doesn't your logic apply as well to Gilette practically giving away
razors and charging dearly for the blades? I'm a real believer that
open markets, the old law of "supply and demand", and traditional
economics do much better than any government regulation. Over the
years we've worried about regulating such virtual monopolies as Xerox,
IBM, AT&T, even Wordstar (for us old timers) and their pricing
structures. I just view this issue is one of more educated consumers
coming out ahead. More government regulation won't help anything. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V.
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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]

Bob,

> Doesn't your logic apply as well to Gillette practically giving away
> razors and charging dearly for the blades?

Possibly not.  A razor is a few dollar item, and, you can typically buy drug
store brand cartridges as well.  Also, the blades typically cost more than
the razor, at least a pack of them does.  They also last, for me, one shave.
I am not going to hesitate to get another razor just to switch to another
blade, as the blades are the main expense.

You also don't have anything "invested" in the razor as you do the printer.
For the printer, you had to set it up, install drivers...for the razor, you
ripped it out of the package.

> I'm a real believer that
> open markets, the old law of "supply and demand", and traditional
> economics do much better than any government regulation.

Agreed, but this is a different case as far as I am concerned.  Disallowing
other companies to make consumables for printers is BS.  That would be like
the manufacturer of a car only allowing you to use THEIR oil filters...and
prohibiting someone from making aftermarket oil filters.

Austin

Ken,

> 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.

I would not call this situation "marketing strategy of choice".  What they
are doing is misleading customers to some degree, and attempting to use
bogus (IMO) legal tactics (like a very bizarre interpretation of the DMCA,
which, in my book, most of it should have never been put in place in the
first place) to try to do something that is, as far as I know, illegal
("tying" as Keith outlined)...by trying to prohibit other companies from
making consumables.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
...by trying to prohibit other companies from making consumables.

Austin:
We're on the same page. Let the free market reigh. If a company prices
the basic product cheap hoping to make it up on the consumables and
somebody  is smart enough to duplicate the consumables, let it be. 

But, I have no sympathy for the consumer who didn't do their homework
and bought a printer before realizing what the manufacturer was going
to make thier money on the consumables. Nor do I believe we need laws
to protect the consumers who buy the manufacturers ink carts because
they never bothered to find alternatives. 

I simply would not have bought my Epson printer if aftermarket ink &
carts were not available. And I don't feel bad that the price was
subsidized by consumers who buy Epson carts. 

Bob Michaels

Bob,

> I simply would not have bought my Epson printer if aftermarket ink &
> carts were not available. And I don't feel bad that the price was
> subsidized by consumers who buy Epson carts.

I believe people should buy Epson cartridges because they provide something
more than other cartridges do, whether it's price or quality or
results...BUT...I do NOT want them to prohibit the aftermarket people from
making cartridges, whether it be color cartridges, CIS systems OR PolyTone
B&W inksets.

I happen TO buy Epson color inks for my general color printer.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob_Michaels 
<Bob@B...>" <Bob@B...> wrote:
> Keith:
> 
> Doesn't your logic apply as well to Gilette practically giving away
> razors and charging dearly for the blades? 

Perhaps, perhaps not, that debate is NOt for here though..

>I'm a real believer that
> open markets, the old law of "supply and demand", and traditional
> economics do much better than any government regulation. 

Looks like you  missed a WHOLE bunch of economics there old timer.  
You are guilty of one of the most basic of errors - mistaking the 
concept of a "free market" for that of laissez faire Capitalism.

To illustrate why government rules are necessary..

In a truly Laissez Faire system (as you support):  "traditional
economics do much better than any government regulation", consumers 
would be wholly subject to the rule of "caveat emptor" ("buyer 
beware"). If they were injured by a defective product they could not 
recover. 

Similarly, if the product did not perform as advertised, they could 
not be guaranteed any compensation.  What then happens is you result 
in not a "free market," but instead, a market highly skewed to favor 
the monetary power of individual producers/companies.  In fact, in 
such a system, the larger the company and its power, the less likely 
a consumer is to be even able to acquire the information necessary 
to "know" about the product they buy, or to recover for injuries 
they receive.  Look back at the history of railroads and the "robber 
barons" for what happens in such a market.

>Over the
> years we've worried about regulating such virtual monopolies as 
Xerox,
> IBM, AT&T, even Wordstar (for us old timers) and their pricing
> structures. I just view this issue is one of more educated 
consumers
> coming out ahead. More government regulation won't help anything. 

Ahh... But here we are again.  If all the information on inks 
is "proprietary" and there are no "government rules" regulating fair 
advertising, fraud, injury, etc., then how DOES the consumer EVER 
get info...?

Your system sounds "oh so nice, and simple" so attractive.  
Unfortunately, in practice it would be a nightmare of the first 
order. If one EPSON cartridge in EVERY 1000 blew up and perhaps one 
in 10 of those resulted in an eye injury, would you be willing to 
forego suing EPSON if your eye was the one injured.  If your car is 
defective and it catches on fire, or a defective transmission fails 
causing you to run over a loved one, are you willing to tell us that 
you PROMISE not to sue the manufacturer?  For that is what your 
regime would pre-suppose - "no government regulation" means exactly 
that - you would not be able to sue in court for your injuries.. 

With the number of products coming on the market daily it would be 
impossible for even the most informed consumers to keep up.  Imagine 
is we had to look up each and every ingredient on packages and cross-
index them with other ingredients in the same product for safety and 
efficacy... Not to mention with all our other products, drugs, etc, 
AND then compare this all to a database of "safe" products (WHO the 
heck would even keep such a database in your world I wonder - would 
we need to pay to subscribe to this "voluntary" list? - so, only 
those with enough discretionary cash would be worthy of receiving 
safe products?).. Your world would make a simple trip to the 
supermarket an educational experience worthy of granting a 
bachelor's degree.

Nice idea Bob if we leaved in a utopian world of inidividuals who 
never lied, cheated, and who would not put the safety of others 
ahead of their own pocketbook.. 

Unfortunately, I AM an informed consumer, both on the products AND 
the economics, so, feel free to set up "straw men" again for me 
anytime..

Keith

BTW:  

1) "Tying" is already illegal in many circumstances, we don't 
need "more regulation" to accomplish that -- all we need is 
enforcement of laws already on the books..

2)  The trigger for initiating enforcement of actions for "tying" is 
often the penetration/ubiquity of products in the marketplace. 
Inkjets printers are approaching that "critical mass," just as 
office copiers did..

3)  Imagine if you were "required" to use Windows on an Intel CPU 
machine or lose any warranty... That's what a world where tying is 
allowed would look like.  In the case of inkjets, if you used 3rd 
party inks, EPSON and other companies could void your warranty even 
if that had NOTHING to do with the product failure.. I assume you do 
expect your warranties to be honored by EPSON in such cases, or 
would you just chalk it up to experience and buy another printer?

Keith

Keith:
You and I share a passion for great images and the desire to create
them, but we come from different sides of the economic / political
spectrum. But, that's OK as this is a group about creating images. 
Bob Michaels

<snip>

> 
> To illustrate why government rules are necessary..
> 
> In a truly Laissez Faire system (as you support):  "traditional
> economics do much better than any government regulation", consumers 
> would be wholly subject to the rule of "caveat emptor" ("buyer 
> beware"). If they were injured by a defective product they could not 
> recover. 
> 
> Similarly, if the product did not perform as advertised, they could 
> not be guaranteed any compensation.  What then happens is you result 
> in not a "free market," but instead, a market highly skewed to favor 
> the monetary power of individual producers/companies.  In fact, in 
> such a system, the larger the company and its power, the less likely 
> a consumer is to be even able to acquire the information necessary 
> to "know" about the product they buy, or to recover for injuries 
> they receive.  Look back at the history of railroads and the "robber 
> barons" for what happens in such a market.
> 
> >Over the
> > years we've worried about regulating such virtual monopolies as 
> Xerox,
> > IBM, AT&T, even Wordstar (for us old timers) and their pricing
> > structures. I just view this issue is one of more educated 
> consumers
> > coming out ahead. More government regulation won't help anything. 
> 
> Ahh... But here we are again.  If all the information on inks 
> is "proprietary" and there are no "government rules" regulating fair 
> advertising, fraud, injury, etc., then how DOES the consumer EVER 
> get info...?
> 
> Your system sounds "oh so nice, and simple" so attractive.  
> Unfortunately, in practice it would be a nightmare of the first 
> order. If one EPSON cartridge in EVERY 1000 blew up and perhaps one 
> in 10 of those resulted in an eye injury, would you be willing to 
> forego suing EPSON if your eye was the one injured.  If your car is 
> defective and it catches on fire, or a defective transmission fails 
> causing you to run over a loved one, are you willing to tell us that 
> you PROMISE not to sue the manufacturer?  For that is what your 
> regime would pre-suppose - "no government regulation" means exactly 
> that - you would not be able to sue in court for your injuries.. 
> 
> With the number of products coming on the market daily it would be 
> impossible for even the most informed consumers to keep up.  Imagine 
> is we had to look up each and every ingredient on packages and cross-
> index them with other ingredients in the same product for safety and 
> efficacy... Not to mention with all our other products, drugs, etc, 
> AND then compare this all to a database of "safe" products (WHO the 
> heck would even keep such a database in your world I wonder - would 
> we need to pay to subscribe to this "voluntary" list? - so, only 
> those with enough discretionary cash would be worthy of receiving 
> safe products?).. Your world would make a simple trip to the 
> supermarket an educational experience worthy of granting a 
> bachelor's degree.
> 
> Nice idea Bob if we leaved in a utopian world of inidividuals who 
> never lied, cheated, and who would not put the safety of others 
> ahead of their own pocketbook.. 
> 
> Unfortunately, I AM an informed consumer, both on the products AND 
> the economics, so, feel free to set up "straw men" again for me 
> anytime..
> 
> Keith

Keith,

I have to take exception to the way you have responded on three counts.

Firstly, you are arguing by exaggeration here.  Worse, you are 
premising your exaggeration on points that Bob did not actually say.  
The law of supply and demand is not the same as your caustic 
interpretation of laissez faire.  Nobody suggested abandoning _all_ 
government regulation.  Nobody suggested suspending a person's right to 
sue in the case of wrongful injury.  Epson carts blowing up and causing 
eye injuries? -- give me a break.

Two, your tone is demeaning and argumentative.

Three, there is a serious disconnect between what you actually know and 
what you purport to know with respect to economics and the Law.

I am happy to provide a more detailed assessment of your recent posts, 
but would prefer to do it off-list.  In the meantime I have to go find 
out what went wrong with my junk mail filter.

--
Kevin

On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Keith Krebs 
<editor@...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob_Michaels
> <Bob@B...>" <Bob@B...> wrote:
>> Keith:
>>
>> Doesn't your logic apply as well to Gilette practically giving away
>> razors and charging dearly for the blades?
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not, that debate is NOt for here though..
>
>> I'm a real believer that
>> open markets, the old law of "supply and demand", and traditional
>> economics do much better than any government regulation.
>
> Looks like you  missed a WHOLE bunch of economics there old timer.
> You are guilty of one of the most basic of errors - mistaking the
> concept of a "free market" for that of laissez faire Capitalism.
>
> To illustrate why government rules are necessary..
>
> In a truly Laissez Faire system (as you support):  "traditional
> economics do much better than any government regulation", consumers
> would be wholly subject to the rule of "caveat emptor" ("buyer
> beware"). If they were injured by a defective product they could not
> recover.
>
> Similarly, if the product did not perform as advertised, they could
> not be guaranteed any compensation.  What then happens is you result
> in not a "free market," but instead, a market highly skewed to favor
> the monetary power of individual producers/companies.  In fact, in
> such a system, the larger the company and its power, the less likely
> a consumer is to be even able to acquire the information necessary
> to "know" about the product they buy, or to recover for injuries
> they receive.  Look back at the history of railroads and the "robber
> barons" for what happens in such a market.
>
>> Over the
>> years we've worried about regulating such virtual monopolies as
> Xerox,
>> IBM, AT&T, even Wordstar (for us old timers) and their pricing
>> structures. I just view this issue is one of more educated
> consumers
>> coming out ahead. More government regulation won't help anything.
>
> Ahh... But here we are again.  If all the information on inks
> is "proprietary" and there are no "government rules" regulating fair
> advertising, fraud, injury, etc., then how DOES the consumer EVER
> get info...?
>
> Your system sounds "oh so nice, and simple" so attractive.
> Unfortunately, in practice it would be a nightmare of the first
> order. If one EPSON cartridge in EVERY 1000 blew up and perhaps one
> in 10 of those resulted in an eye injury, would you be willing to
> forego suing EPSON if your eye was the one injured.  If your car is
> defective and it catches on fire, or a defective transmission fails
> causing you to run over a loved one, are you willing to tell us that
> you PROMISE not to sue the manufacturer?  For that is what your
> regime would pre-suppose - "no government regulation" means exactly
> that - you would not be able to sue in court for your injuries..
>
> With the number of products coming on the market daily it would be
> impossible for even the most informed consumers to keep up.  Imagine
> is we had to look up each and every ingredient on packages and cross-
> index them with other ingredients in the same product for safety and
> efficacy... Not to mention with all our other products, drugs, etc,
> AND then compare this all to a database of "safe" products (WHO the
> heck would even keep such a database in your world I wonder - would
> we need to pay to subscribe to this "voluntary" list? - so, only
> those with enough discretionary cash would be worthy of receiving
> safe products?).. Your world would make a simple trip to the
> supermarket an educational experience worthy of granting a
> bachelor's degree.
>
> Nice idea Bob if we leaved in a utopian world of inidividuals who
> never lied, cheated, and who would not put the safety of others
> ahead of their own pocketbook..
>
> Unfortunately, I AM an informed consumer, both on the products AND
> the economics, so, feel free to set up "straw men" again for me
> anytime..
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>

Ken Carney wrote:

>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. 
>
Seiko-EPSON just FWIW is NOT publicly held.  ;-)

> Operating ethically means operating within the law and
>administrative rules. 
>
Exactly, and some of those rules generally prohibit "tying".. The 
problem lays in a re-interpretation of those rules to create a "freer 
market" - of course, "freeing up the market" gave us ENRON, conflicts of 
interest between analysts and banking firms / brokerage houses, etc.. 
 The rules wee erected no to create market disutility, but to prevent 
abuses that actually make the marketplace operate in an inefficient 
fashion...  "Cheating" generally simply advantages one party to the 
benefit of another, it inequitably redistributes $$ without driving the 
market forward efficiently.

> 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. 
>
Ummm. That's already the law..

You clearly either don't know or fully understand the law on this, one 
or the other..  Please reserve your comments then to opinion or editorial.

As I've made clear elsewhere, "tying" is already a generally disfavored 
anticompetitive practice, the issue is not the law, it is one of 
enforcement.

> Then there probably wouldn't be an Epson
>printer at all, at least like we have now.  
>

Very different issue.  As I've said, the rules tend to be invoked when a 
piece of technology has reached a "critical mass" of sorts.  That's also 
a straw man argument. No-one is suggesting we apply those rules 
post-facto, we ARE suggesting that the current state has reached that 
point.  We are no longer dealing with some infant technology that is 
confined to a niche market which needs incubation or insulation to survive.


>There is even a fairly strong
>trend of companies going to Sun Office ($86 for five licenses) instead of MS
>Office (mucho more under the new pricing structure).
>  
>
Which shows what?  That once tying is prohibited, as practiced by M$ in 
its licensing terms, that the market will adjust and options will 
increase. Thanks for providing an example to bolster my position.

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]

Ken Carney wrote:

>For what it's worth, here is my take on this. 
>
<SNIP!>

For a quick introduction to the real world of tying and enforcement, see 
Paul Roark's post at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/24277
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]

Austin Franklin wrote:

>  
>
>I believe people should buy Epson cartridges because they provide something
>more than other cartridges do, whether it's price or quality or
>results..
>
and IF they are advantageous in NONE of those ways?
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]

> >I believe people should buy Epson cartridges because they
> provide something
> >more than other cartridges do, whether it's price or quality or
> >results..
> >
> and IF they are advantageous in NONE of those ways?

Er, don't buy them, unless there is some other compelling reason, aside from
force.

Austin

Kevin Gulstene wrote:

>Keith,
>
>I have to take exception to the way you have responded on three counts.
>
>Firstly, you are arguing by exaggeration here.  Worse, you are 
>premising your exaggeration on points that Bob did not actually say. 
>
Oh no?

" I'm a real believer that open markets, the old law of "supply and 
demand", and traditional economics do much better than any government 
regulation."

Please note the words " do much better than any government regulation." 
 Those are Bob's not mine..

> 
>The law of supply and demand is not the same as your caustic 
>interpretation of laissez faire.  Nobody suggested abandoning _all_ 
>government regulation.  Nobody suggested suspending a person's right to 
>sue in the case of wrongful injury.
>
Again, I refer you to Bob's quote above.. If the scope of his quote was 
meant to be one  that is much narrower than the plain language meaning, 
the onus is upon he, not the reader, to divine that.

I take some umbrage arguments that "an unfettered free market" ALWAYS 
provides the best or most efficient distribution of resources. Your 
answer itself  implicitly admits that in seeking to limit the scope of 
the comment..

>  Epson carts blowing up and causing 
>eye injuries? -- give me a break.
>


Ok, let's look at HP cartridges which do, on occasion, blow up.. ;-) Not 
so far-fetched is it?

>
>Two, your tone is demeaning and argumentative.
>

If that is so, I apologize, however, I take issue with opinion painted 
with a brush so broadly as to seemingly solve the problem - the world is 
rarely so simple.

>
>Three, there is a serious disconnect between what you actually know and 
>what you purport to know with respect to economics and the Law.
>  
>
LOL

Ok, now, how would you have any inkling what I know?

>I am happy to provide a more detailed assessment of your recent posts, 
>but would prefer to do it off-list. 
>
You are more than welcome to continue this with me offlist - offlist is 
really a more appropriate place for discussions of economics law and 
politics.

> In the meantime I have to go find 
>out what went wrong with my junk mail filter.
>  
>
Hope it hasn't died.  With SPAM up 450%  over the last year (thanks to a 
virtually complete lack of regulation) it is pretty onerous at times 
without a spam filter..

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]

Keith,

On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 08:19 PM, Editor P.O.V. Image Service 
wrote:

>
>
> Kevin Gulstene wrote:
>
>> Keith,
>>
>> I have to take exception to the way you have responded on three 
>> counts.
>>
>> Firstly, you are arguing by exaggeration here.  Worse, you are
>> premising your exaggeration on points that Bob did not actually say.
>>
> Oh no?
>
> " I'm a real believer that open markets, the old law of "supply and
> demand", and traditional economics do much better than any government
> regulation."
>
> Please note the words " do much better than any government regulation."
>  Those are Bob's not mine..

Do "any" and "all" mean the same thing to you?  My apologies if ESL 
graduation is pending.

>
>>
>> The law of supply and demand is not the same as your caustic
>> interpretation of laissez faire.  Nobody suggested abandoning _all_
>> government regulation.  Nobody suggested suspending a person's right 
>> to
>> sue in the case of wrongful injury.
>>
> Again, I refer you to Bob's quote above.. If the scope of his quote was
> meant to be one  that is much narrower than the plain language meaning,
> the onus is upon he, not the reader, to divine that.
>
> I take some umbrage arguments that "an unfettered free market" ALWAYS
> provides the best or most efficient distribution of resources. Your
> answer itself  implicitly admits that in seeking to limit the scope of
> the comment..
>
>>  Epson carts blowing up and causing
>> eye injuries? -- give me a break.
>>
>
>
> Ok, let's look at HP cartridges which do, on occasion, blow up.. ;-) 
> Not
> so far-fetched is it?
>
>>
>> Two, your tone is demeaning and argumentative.
>>
>
> If that is so, I apologize, however, I take issue with opinion painted
> with a brush so broadly as to seemingly solve the problem - the world 
> is
> rarely so simple.
>
>>
>> Three, there is a serious disconnect between what you actually know 
>> and
>> what you purport to know with respect to economics and the Law.
>>
>>
> LOL
>
> Ok, now, how would you have any inkling what I know?

I assume you write what you think you know.  What you write is flawed. 
--> Your knowledge is flawed.  Alternatively you are just jerking us 
around.

>
>> I am happy to provide a more detailed assessment of your recent posts,
>> but would prefer to do it off-list.
>>
> You are more than welcome to continue this with me offlist - offlist is
> really a more appropriate place for discussions of economics law and
> politics.
>
>> In the meantime I have to go find
>> out what went wrong with my junk mail filter.
>>
>>
> Hope it hasn't died.  With SPAM up 450%  over the last year (thanks to 
> a
> virtually complete lack of regulation) it is pretty onerous at times
> without a spam filter..

Yes, SPAM is also annoying.

This is my last on-list post on the subject, I'll leave the last word 
to you.

>
> 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 
> "flames."
> - 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/
>
>
>

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>>I believe people should buy Epson cartridges because they
>>>      
>>>
>>provide something
>>    
>>
>>>more than other cartridges do, whether it's price or quality or
>>>results..
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>and IF they are advantageous in NONE of those ways?
>>    
>>
>
>Er, don't buy them, unless there is some other compelling reason, aside from
>force.
>
>
>  
>
Good...

Perhaps we can all agree on this..

"EPSON's behavior may not be unethical, but it is, in the current state 
of the market, anti-competitive. If their chipping scheme was 100% 
successful the market would be poorer as a result."

Personally, I don't see EPSON as unethical, nor do I specifically ALWAYS 
find tying a problem..  I just feel that the market is approaching a 
point where tying should be more carefully evaluated.
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]

Kevin,

> > Please note the words " do much better than any government regulation."
> >  Those are Bob's not mine..
> 
> Do "any" and "all" mean the same thing to you?

Not all the time, but in this case, it does.

Austin