LindaD wrote:
Yep ink is costly. Should you be shocked? Maybe,
lots of things are shocks when you randomly
purchase items.

Every time I see someone say there ought to be a
law..., I immediately loose any sympathy for the
person. I don't like being made to pay for
someone else's lack of initiative and laziness.
No one hid the price of ink cartridges. You could
easily have walked over to the aisle with the ink
cartridges and looked at the prices. Part of
life is thinking about the consequences of owning
something or just accepting them. Do you buy a
house without considering taxes, utilities, and
other annual costs? Do you buy a 2 ton 4-wheel
vehicle instead of a small economic car even
though you just drive it around town?

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:05:23 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

George, don't be so hard on the poster. You have to consider that a
new inkjet printer user also has no idea what kind of production he or
she can expect out a cartridge. The manufacturers will advertise that
the average black cartridge will give you 125 to 150 pages of black
print at "average coverage". However, the bastards don't define what
"average coverage" is. I've did a little research awhile back and
found out that the industry standard for "average coverage" is a one
paragraph business letter with two short sentences in the body.
That's not what anyone I know would call "average coverage". I would
call it about 5% coverage.

I remember when I bought my first inkjet ... a middle of the road
Lexmark ... I know ... I know ... it was crap. I did my research and
knew that the replace cartridges were $43 each. The problem was that
I didn't have any actual experience to put that cost into perspective.
I wasn't shocked until I ran out of black ink after running off about
60 pages of pretty decent coverage material. On second thought, it
wasn't as much a feeling of shock as it was a realization that I had
endured an assault. The very next thing I did was to Google a search
for inkjet refilling and refilling vendors.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:05:23 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

The average guy on the street (quite often) assumes the hardware is
the priciest item. That's probably changing slowly, but I reckon basic
laws are needed to protect the customer.

For example, in Australia with mobile phone contracts, laws were
changed (eventually) to list the total cost over the whole contract to
avoid misleading Joe User and keep everything honest and up-front.So
the total minimum cost over the course of the contract is listed so
the average user can make sense of all the mumbo-jumbo.

I am not a fan of government making laws for everything you can think
of, but I think a basic, standardised cost-of-ownership 'guide' for
printers at point-of-sale that manufacturers (and retailers) would
have to comply with on their literature, websites, in-store, etc would
help many tremendously and encourage the manufacturers to compete on
cost-per-page (because it's out there for all to see) and make far
more efficient use of resources (which is a growing issue all around
the world). Of course they would rather not do that, but it would be a
win for the customer and environment. Some printer manufacturers seem
to see themselves as 'green' just because they offer recycling
programs for 'used-once' tossed out cartridges, which to me, is a sad
joke).
http://www.canon.com.au/planetark/default.aspx


Think of millions of these things around the world tossed out every
year because people don't know any better. Absolute horrendous waste
and we are all paying for it in more ways than one.

Re-use is the key.

"bulge" <invalid@nodomain.nett> wrote in message
news:rnve02hc0t62pol33eist39344jcor1bl9@4ax.com...
Bulge - the Planetark site doesn't say what they do with these cartridges
once collected. I doubt that they would refill them as the factories that
manufacture and fill these carts are all in Asia. Cheaper by far to make a
new one than to reprocess and refill, repackage, and redistribute for sale.
I fear that they would be crushed and find their way, en masse, to the Canon
landfill!

If Canon really wanted to be kind to the planet they would make easily
refillable cartridges and simple kits with their own inks. Priced
correctly, it would be better for the consumer and better for the planet.
Considering all the steps to get an OEM cartridge to market, it may even be
as profitable to Canon. Until then, the best re-use plan is for inkjet
printer users to refill their own cartridges with aftermarket bulk inks.

Made Man wrote:

There is one major flaw with your diatribe here. The ink companies are
being intentionally deceptive. The cost of those cartridges comes
nowhere near a reasonable real cost with profit integrated, and the cost
of the printer comes nowhere near its real cost with profit considered
either.

If your car came with a full tank of gas, and the next fill up cost 150%
what the car complete with the full gas tank cost, you might also think
there should be a law.

She didn't buy a "two ton" printer for a econo-box need. She bought a
run of the mill, low end printer, for basic needs.

When intentional deception is the intent of a manufacturer or
distribution system, yes, then a law may be required to balance things.
It might also properly alter the business model toward one which is
more sane and honest. I think its a great idea.

Linda is correct in her shock, and correct in thinking government is
supposed to control deceptive advertising intent.

Quite honestly, in this case, I'd say you are the lazy one lacking
initiative, and I would add selfish to those qualities. While Linda's
suggestion would both protect consumers and force the manufacturers to
change a very poor business model by bringing a little light on it, you
seem to be content just in the "knowledge" of what they are doing.

Art


George E. Cawthon wrote:

You make some very good points in your posting. This business model is
becoming rampant, by shifting the real costs to the cheap consumables,
the companies are waging a war of deception against the consumer.

It is worse than "drug pushing", because it gets the person with the
hardware purchase in their hands (be it a printer or a cell phone, or
whathaveyou) for free or nearly that, but the hardware is of little to
no use without the consumable "contract" which is designed to make the
losses back.

People assume that the price of something reflects its real cost...
therefore printers are worthless, ink is valuable. Cell phones are
worthless, call minutes are "valuable".

People end up either feeling guilty about the item and keep it and pay
to feed it, or they get angry and toss the printer away, because it is
cheaper to buy another one, inclusive of the ink, than the cost of a set
of cartridges. No only is it deceptive, it is a very poor model for
others to learn to live by.

Art



bulge wrote:

Hi Burt, and others interested:

This is where to read what Planet Ark states they do with the inkjet
cartridges they get:

http://www.planetark.org/campaignspa...te/5/story.htm

Take it as you will. They claim the inks are reused in "low grade
printing and dying applications" and the plastic is ground up and used
to make things like park benches.

However, likely the process if very polluting in terms of water usage,
and the end products are low end plastics that, being mixed with many
resin types and even metals, have little real value, except molding
dimensional lumber.

They do mention that about 60% of laser cartridge parts are reused or
remanufactuered by the manufacturers.

The real reason the foundation sponsors include just about every major
printer manufacturer is because it both gives then an excuse for their
miserable waste of materials with these cartridges, and because they
love seeing these cartridges be taken out of the system so they aren't
refilled and resold as second-life products.

Art


Burt wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

ATTENTION BURTIE FURTIE

Art, I think you do a great service in helping
others with clogs, but I don't share your
political ramblings.

What can I say? I'm a lazy SOB. I prefer to just
lie drunk in the gutter and let sympathetic
passer-bys throw wonderful printers and cheap ink
in my direction. If I remember right, that worked
well when I wanted my house painted, a new roof
applied, a wood floor in the kitchen and dining
area.

Oh yeah, I think that strategy also worked for my
last new vehicle, except the SOB that gave it to
me as I lay in the gutter, didn't say one word
about all the extra costs, like gasoline, oil,
filters, tires. Hell, I even had to beg some
person to buy me insurance. There ought to be a
law against such deception. Course I don't get
much driving done anyway, seeing as how I'm lying
drunk in the gutter most of the time, me being so
lazy and all.


Arthur Entlich wrote:

Guess what George? I don't care for your politics either. However, I
walk my walk. As is usually the case with those of the right
"persuasion" you tend to ignore the challenges when a logical argument
is made in your general direction, and just repeat what you stated the
first time, flaws and all, as if that makes it true.

You are the one who brought politics into this. The poster was just
expressing outrage at something almost everyone agrees is a terrible
business model, that fosters anti-consummer and anti-environmental
commerce. Not all commerce is "good" just because it makes someone
money. Wars make people money too, but other than a few perversities
who happen to have ended up in some powerful positions, the majority of
people are opposed to that type of commerce.

I have to laugh whenever the Rush Limbaugh mentality of extremes is used
as a defense. It sounds ridiculous when he does it, but he was addicted
to pain killers, so that might excuse him, but it sounds equally
ridiculous when other do it, as well.

"I prefer to just lie drunk in the gutter and let sympathetic passer-bys
throw wonderful printers and cheap ink in my direction."

So whom, exactly, is this drunk you are implicating? Is it I (I don't
drink alcohol at all) or perhaps it is DLinda you are referring to?
As I stated previously, at least we see the flaw in the current system
and it's intent (you aren't going to tell me now that the inkjet
manufacturers just decided to use the business model they do for reasons
other than to deceive people as to the real cost of ownership of the
printer, are you?)

Governments and laws are supposed to exist to protect the general public
from abuse and deceit, whether it comes from individuals, manufacturers,
ethnic groups, political groups, or anyone else wishing to direct their
power. If the printer manufacturers were not attempting to use this
business model to deceive, what possible objection would they have to
indicating the cost of ink use of their printers?

And, by the way, some car manufacturers do indeed supply cost of
ownership on their tags now (and some states require they list all
taxes, surcharges, delivery and prep fees). Some manufacturers also
cover costs like oil changes and tune ups and other maintenance costs
for a several year period. Lots of states will also tell you how much
it will cost you should you drive drunk ;-)

And, regarding your home, some states require paint manufacturers to not
only guarantee the square footage coverage of their paints as indicated,
but to buy back any leftover paint. Chances are there is also
legislation regarding roofing estimates and floor estimates that they
must include installation charges.

So, why not require manufacturers to indicate what it costs to keep
their printers in ink? Are you not in favor of healthy competition?

Art



George E. Cawthon wrote:

<snipping political claptrap from BOTH sides>

I wouldn't be surprised if LindaD, the OP, left long ago when she saw
what her simple post morphed into.

TJ

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:lJfPf.118382$B94.60481@pd7tw3no...
Arthur - Eloquently expressed an bang on in your logic. Consumer power over
the years has brought many a chnage in the market place. In my mind this is
another area when area where change is required, and I believe it will come
in time.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
Art you are a hoot? I could say I saw a blue tree
and you would think I was unhappy.

No, the poster was just outraged because she did
no research, simple as walking to another aisle to
look at prices. She wanted the government to do
it for her. Well, I don't feel like doing it for her.

Huh? If you are going to the ad hominem argument
how about using Hitler or Stalin, maybe even
Ghengis Khan. Poor Rush isn't a fitting example
for the severity of my transgressions.
That was a sarcastic piece of writing in response
to your calling me lazy. Weird that you couldn't
figure that out.

You are truly weird. The sentence said "I" so how
did you manage to transfer that "I" to mean you?
I guess the same way that you transfered lazy from
the OP to me.

I don't have a problem with the current system.
It provides me with good, cheap printers. Then I
go buy good cheap ink from ink resellers. If you
feel deceived, then don't participate in that market.

Ah yes, here is the good old insert government
protection and everything will be just wonderful.
I'll bet that would reduce the cost of ink!

And you didn't understand that as sarcasm? But if
you want to be serious, some manufactures may
state those costs, but their is no reason to
believe they will be anywhere near reality.
Currently there is a big flap about the U.S. EPA
gas mileage statement required on new card
stickers. Seems that the mileage is based on a
ridiculous driving strategy that overestimates
fuel economy by anywhere up to 30 percent. In
other words, the car with a 21mpg estimate may
only deliver 15mpg. Oh, another bit of sarcasm in
case you don't follow, Bet you were first in
line insisting that the government provide a fuel
mileage estimate to protect the people, or would
have been if you were a U.S. citizen.
You really don't understand, do you? The comment
was sarcasm in response to your statement that I
was lazy. I painted my house, I put a new roof on
it, I installed new wood floors (and vinyl). A
lazy person would not do that, a lazy, rich,
incapable person would just hire someone to do it
and the probably bitch about what a poor job the
workers did and why the government didn't protect him.
Because whatever standard someone thought up for
the comparison would be virtually meaningless
because there are so many variables.

Yep, I'm in favor of competition. Don't know what
healthy competition means, does it mean free from
the disease of government control? If so, sure I
like healthy competition.

How about getting back to printer problems and
solutions?

George E. Cawthon wrote:

ARE YOU SAYING HE IT AN OLD COOT OR JUST A HOOT

OH YEAH

I WILL VOUCH FOR THAT

THE RELABELERS DO INDEED SELL CHEAP PRINTER CLOGGING INK

"Jim McColl" <j_a_mccoll @em-ess-n.com> wrote in
news:6_jPf.1146$Qh1.31507@news20.bellglobal.com:

The downside being what the reaction would be when they start selling
printers for a couple hunderd at the low end.

George E. Cawthon wrote:

I'm glad you find this entertaining.

Her point, which you don't seem to get, is that if the cost of printer
versus ink was made more obvious, people might be both better educated
and make better choices, and be outraged and force change. The inkjet
printer companies "hide" behind the lack of legislation. And it isn't
all that simple for first time owners (or many others) to determine
yield even if you do go to the next isle and price the ink, because the
that information is not indicated on the packages, in fact, many don't
even list the amount of ink in the cartridge. Further, amount of ink
lost in cleanings or purges when cartridges are replaced is an unknown
until you own the product and use it. However, believe me,
manufacturers know exactly how much these average out to and therefore
average cost per "page".

No, because your commentary isn't "worthy" of a Hitler, Stalin or
Ghengis Khan, just a Limbaugh, I'm afraid. ;-)

No, I'm not "weird" at all. You were creating a representation of
people who, in your mind, manifested the characteristics of someone who
would expect government to take a protective stand on issues such as
these as a "contrast". It was equally 'ad hominem' even if you made it
appear you were referring to a 'fantastic' version of yourself (the drunk).

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character
of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made
(or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the
claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument the person in question is making (or presenting)"


However, I suspect you wouldn't have your printer repaired if the cost
to do so approached the OEM ink subsidized cost of a new printer
(inclusive of new ink set and warranty). This pricing model causes
that, and much worse.

No, you still don't get it. The government's job isn't to lower ink
cost or raise printer costs. The government's job is to help educate
and inform so manufacturers can't hide behind false or omitted
information. By making a flatter field, each person can determine
easily the real cost of their printer "investment". The public will
direct changes in purchasing, by changes in their buying habits, which
will be reflected back to sales in a product, and the manufacturers will
respond with some real competition in pricing or quality or ink yield,
or all three.

I fully understand sarcasm, and I also understand miscues in a debate.
I called your "sarcasm" by revealing the state of affairs, so others
have a better idea of the place inkjet printers fit in the overall
market methodology.


But if you want to be
I was a US citizen back then, and yes, I was in favor of it, and I still
am, because regardless of the specific lack of accuracy on an individual
basis, they have relative accuracy when compared to one another. They
may be off 30% from real road driving, but they are pretty much equally
inflated numbers.

Once again, while you might have been interested in being sarcastic, I
wanted to further point out that the examples you gave all had some type
of correlary in terms of expectation and regulation of manufacturer's
claims.

The EPA numbers on MPG or KPL are not meaningless at all. They are
inaccurate for the real world, but they remain relatively accurate. The
car that has the best gas mileage will still continue to do so even if
the numbers don't match.

Healthy competition is a fair and honest kind, where companies cannot
hide the truth or can't get around the basic standards, which are agreed
upon and regulated.

This IS a printer problem and a potential solution exists.

Art

That's exactly how the market used to be and it worked. My first inkjet
was an Epson Stylus Color cost was about $1000 plus taxes CAN and the
cartridges were huge and relatively inexpensive.

Art

Gary Tait wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

IT IS BETTER NOW. YOU CAN BUY A LOT OF INK FOR $1,000

Arthur Entlich wrote:
And I'm glad that you are glad, so I guess we are
finally in agreement and have resolved all our
differences.

((rest snipped))