🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:45:04 +0000, the renowned Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

>
>
>
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>>Mr.T wrote:
>>>
>>>>Guy Macon wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>>>>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>>>>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>>>>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>>>>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>>>>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>>>>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>>>>> if the container weighs less.
>>>>
>>>>Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>>>>designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
>>>>lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
>>>>what to expect.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
>>>>of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
>>>>Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>>>
>>>You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
>>>for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
>>>to reduce production costs?
>>
>>Oh, for gosh sakes, it's not to "reduce production costs" by a few
>>cents worth of toner- it's the "give them a razor and sell them the
>>overpriced blades forever" gambit. 
>>
>>But it's especially greedy of them to sell it with only a partially
>>full $100 cartridge (or $500 worth of color cartridges), which carry
>>the full load of hardware and are "chipped" to prevent refilling.  
>>
>>And they do reduce production costs-- by slapping together shoddy
>>product from dubious raw materials in 3rd world countries, and not
>>supporting it when the inevitable failures happen (in part by using
>>other 3rd world nationals to waste time and money at first world rates
>>over almost-free telecommunications links). 
>
>It doesn't matter how they do it.  If the "give them a razor and sell 
>them the overpriced blades forever" gambit makes money, they can
>reduce he purchace price and keep the same profitability.
>
>>>It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers 
>>>with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you 
>>>want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
>>>monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
>>>/ high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
>>>More choices good. Fewer choices bad.
>>
>>Only if you don't have an oligopoly, eh? 
>
>...which they don't.  

Eh? You doubt that the field is dominated by a few large players? 

>Brother is making laser printers with separate 
>drum and toner units so you don't have to replace both together each 
>time you are out of toner.  This makes for cheaper toner cartridges.
>The drum unit has a longer life than the toner cartridge. That's the
>opposite of the "give them a razor and sell them the >overpriced 
>blades forever."  

That's hardly the opposite. Your logic is rather peccable, I'm afraid.

>The printers, of course, cost more to purchase.

Brother's printer offering at one level (HL-5250DN)is quite a bit less
than the price of HP's equivalent, and uses separate toner and drum as
opposed to the single cartridge, so the premise is faulty. 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com