🚀 go-pugleaf

Guy Macon 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.  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."  The printers, of course, cost more to purchase.
> 
> 


    I have a Brother laser on the shelf here, I can buy a new cartridge 
for $170 for it or I can buy a new laser with full size cartridge for
$120.