HP & Staples Collude On $8,000/Gallon Ink? 442
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "HP and Staples are facing an anti-trust lawsuit over replacement printer cartridges. According to the lawsuit, HP paid Staples $100 million to refuse to stock competing ink cartridges. HP could make that back in short order when you consider that printer ink can cost $8,000 per gallon and certain printers deceive users to waste as much as 64% of their ink."
Re:More than just ink... (Score:5, Interesting)
$8000/Gal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More than just ink... (Score:5, Interesting)
Who the hell buys ANY cable from a retailer like Best Buy or Circuit City? Want something worse then USB? Consider Cat5. I love seeing a 25 foot patch cord thats going for anywhere from $25-$40. $1/foot to $1.6/foot. WTF is that? I can buy a thousand feet of the shit for around $80 ($0.08/foot). Yeah, they should get some mark-up for them, but that much?
Wanna "make friends" at a place like Best Buy or Circuit City? Wait till you see Grandma about to buy one of those cables and is being pounced on by the salesguy -- then tell her about the twenty other options for getting that cable for next to nothing. It's worth it just to see the look on the sales persons face. Wonder if they get commissions for ripping people of^W^W^Wselling those cables?
Re:What really chaps my hide... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have several printers that behave that way on windows and mac with the official drivers, but running unofficial drivers or using them on linux it will print increasingly light shades of grey until it runs out completely... Some will actually print with no ink, and just feed out blank sheets.
Re:What really chaps my hide... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Never understood wasted ink... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly this is because most users are clueless and don't understand 3 things about inkjet printers:
1) Using plain (uncoated) paper is a bad idea. The paper dust gets in the print heads and clogs them.
2) If your printer has sat along time without being used, it probably has some dried ink stuck in the print nozzles. You need to clean the nozzles in order to get the best print results after it's sat for more than 2-3 days without being used. Even after cleaning, if image quality problems don't go away, you need to throw away the ink cart, no matter how much ink is in it.
3) Old ink carts (there's an expiry date on the box, usually) should be thrown away and not used.
Unfortunately, since they don't understand this, the printer mfr. puts chips in the carts to try to force the issue, when really the problem is user education.
Re:Starter Cartridges still a bigger evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My Deskjet 550C is still running (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More than just ink... (Score:4, Interesting)
HP, oh how you've changed. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
But then something happened at HP. A number of years later, I remember one of the top dogs in management declaring that they were taking the company in a new direction; that their old methods were being updated to reflect better business models. --This spin-doctored response came as when they were asked why their printers had begun to suck shit.
I today own an HP Laserjet 5L. It is a piece of crud. --It's output looks sharp, but it's a flimsy piece of junk which stopped working properly about a year after I'd bought it. It jams constantly and the toner cartridge seems to run out far more frequently. I'd tell HP to go to hell, but I think they may already be there.
-FL
"low on ink" == "out of ink"? (Score:3, Interesting)
The second article seems pretty stupid. It's about a study that makes two points:
Okay, the first point is reasonable, if obvious. But the second? Here's how the story is introduced (emphasis mine):
But, two paragraphs later, a clarification (again, emphasis mine):
Yes, I want my printer to warn me that it's low on ink before it runs dry. That way, I can check if I have a refill and if not, I have some time to go to the store and buy one. Are they really claiming that people throw away ink as soon as the printer reports it's running low?
From the summary, you might think that they actually ran printers until they stopped printing and then measured how much ink was left in the cartridge. But it seems they did no such thing. They simply measured how much warning the printers give you before running out of ink and then tried to confuse people by using "low on ink" and "out of ink" interchangeably.
Re:Collusion is slowly ending... (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the market from an electrical engineering perspective. Overall, it's a complicated feedback system that is very nonlinear. To a certain extent, it can be modeled as a first-order linear system, and this is what the rabid free-marketeers see when they look at it. Any change in the input basically causes the market to immediately adjust its outputs to account for that. However, this perspective is simply wrong. At the very most, it's a rough approximation. First of all, the system has higher order components, by virtue of the fact that each entity in the marketplace roughly forms a first-order system in and of itself, and so the overall system has an order given by the number of entities in the market (about 6 billion). It's also very non-linear, and is subject to the whims of chaos (i.e., sensitive dependence on initial conditions). If, for example, a group of RAM manufacturers wanted to gouge the public and doubled all RAM prices, the demand for RAM wouldn't simply halve: it would decrease in some strange way.
It should also be stated that if Ron Paul had his way, collusion such as this would be perfectly legal.
Re:What really chaps my hide... (Score:2, Interesting)
Any hacks out there to keep the scanner running when the ink is dry?
Re:Cheap Ink (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong -- but you do have think about the position these businesses are in.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Interesting)
A tip that works: do not share it on Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
For a completely different reason I got an NSLU2 (cheap NAS storage box from Linksys), then put Linux on it, because I needed a low powered always on Asterisk. But hey, you can attach a USB hub to it (if you run Linux), and so I did, and started trying connecting devices.
I was also annoyed, that even though my windows machine was always on, from time to time my wife's printings failed from her MAC. Not really windows' problem, but naturally she always wants to print when I overload the machine, reboot it, or play a game that eats all the resources up.
So I started using the NSLU2 as a print server, after discovering, that there was a print server package for it (actually there is Samba, Cups and p910d ).
Yesterday my printer refused to print, and the ink button/light went on, (of course it occurs when I want to print something before leaving quickly). So I just went to Office depot and bought 1 of each cartridge ($60 for the 4, DAMN
Now when I came back I started checking which cartridge could be empty. Since I use a remote port, the ink monitoring software does not work. But also because of this, you can just ignore the lights, restart the printer, and keep printing.
Before, the epson software prohibited printing, now it cannot monitor the ink, so there is no restriction. Downside: no ink monitor, but remembering, that it is the tool that makes you throw out cartridges half full, I do not want it.
Also I only print B&W, so I really do not care if the Yellow is out.
Just my 2c.
Note: of course only tested this on the NSLU, but should be the same on any Linux, or maybe macs. Just try it with a print server first, maybe it is the same.
Re:More than just ink... (Score:2, Interesting)
No dice. Anything integral to the operation of the printer should be in the box, period. What is especially egregious is when you buy a complete computer system and printer from HP and there is no USB cable. This happened to my girlfriend's mom - she bought a bundled HP computer and printer for her office, and had to run out and buy a USB cable.
buy a laser printer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This picture puts all in perspective (Score:1, Interesting)
Your comment got me thinking so I did some quick calculations in case anyone is interested...
The price of gold right now is $800/troy oz. [monex.com] and a troy ounce is 31.1 grams
Therefore a gallon of gold by weight would be.
( ( 128 * 28.35 ) / 31.1 ) * 800 = $93345.33
A gallon of gold by volume is another story.
A gallon is 3,785.4 cc [google.com] and the density of gold is 19.3 g/ml [elmhurst.edu].
Therefore a gallon of gold by volume is...
( ( 3785.4 * 19.3 ) / 31.1 ) * 800 = $1,879,311.12
Also, this gallon of gold would weigh 161 lbs. Someone please correct me if I made any mistakes.
Sherman Anti-trust Act (Score:2, Interesting)
15 U.S.C.A.
Title 15. Commerce and Trade
Section 1
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Re:This picture puts all in perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
Fixed that for you... (Score:2, Interesting)
this instance of Collusion is slowly ending...
...but in the meantime, they've made their money. In essence, the Lone Ranger rides in after the girl has already been run over by the train, and then chases down Snidely Whiplash (I'm blending kids' TV, so sue me) and tells him not to do that again or it might cost him. Markets work best where there is transparency, and this type of collusion is a blatant deception to the customer. As the parties involved have no incentive for competition, these types of deals will continue. Why argue over bread crumbs when we all can have a loaf?
Collusion is a VERY big deal, though maybe you don't think it affects you (though it does). Collusion is what allowed Enron to happen. If you allow it to go unpunished, it spreads. Why are CDs still so expensive after 20+ years? The media costs next to nothing, there's minimal problems with breakage, and shrinkage protection is substantially better due to inexpensive technology. Either we have collusion, or an example of the market taking an exceptionally long time to fix the problem. (Has it?)
Maybe it's not your life that's affected; you may have a decent paying job, but it does affect those at the bottom. In this case, it's printer ink, which is a small enough expense for most people. Imagine, however, if it was like this for everything. Imagine all the grocery stores in town decided to set minimum prices, and then used their influence on the zoning board to prevent other grocers from opening. Eventually the monopoly would probably be broken, but in the meantime, you've paid the price, and you will never get that money back from the market.
If you lose 15% of your retirement because one of the companies in your portfolio colluded with an auditor to pump up their stock by hiding losses and then got caught, the market will not give you a do-over. Many free market believers will mock your judgement, saying that you should have known; the purpose of collusion, however, is to keep you from knowing, and there is a reason that these types of business relationships are not publicized by the corporations involved. The market rewards profit, and bad behavior, if concealed well enough, is profitable.
Before this gets tagged "pinko commie bastard" I am simply saying that it is important to have regulated markets that operate in a transparent function because the market rewards what is profitable, not what is right. Sometimes, they work together, but sometimes they don't. Regulations lets investors have some security in knowing that they are not being fleeced; confidence is a pretty important thing to markets. We have rules for how large corporations can operate, and with very good reason, because there are certain things that the market does not sort out quickly enough for justice, and history is full of examples of these "minor road bumps in the market". If you're lucky they don't affect you, but there's plenty of people who they do affect.
Re:Laser Printer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Collusion is slowly ending... (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Fines stopped the price fixing scheme?
They don't neccesarily have to stop a pricing scheme to be effective. The proper enforcement of existing laws should serve as an effective deterrent. If you get caught and fined, then it ruins the whole point to begin with.
Let's look at what happened in RAM price fixing history:
2001, Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung collude to fix prices on RDRAM.
2003, RDRAM is dead, Intel gives up hope. Reason? Price was too high.
2004, Discovery is made regarding price fixing.
2005, Found that companies colluded, were fined.
So let's see -- they stopped price fixing in 2003 because in 2005 they were fined?
You claim that in the case of collusion, a company will step in and make a ton of money. Who did that in this case? Even if someone tried, the resources of Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung combined could easily undercut until the new company until they go bankrupt, or just let them join the fold.
In reality, no new company could compete. Instead, we all missed out on RDRAM, and paid way too much for other kinds of RAM.
What sort of malarkey are you trying to pass off in order to be seen as correct? You didn't provide one source of information, you didn't properly compose an answer that could be reviewed easily.
I wish you had put this part at the end, so I could leave it without comment from me.
Thank God! I have competitors who have colluded together on numerous occasions to land contracts. It's called a boat race. "You win this one at a major profit, we'll win the next."
Apparently your competitors who have colluded together are fucking idiots. It should go "One of us will win all future contracts. The total sum of profits from these contracts will be split among us. Sometimes we'll take a loss, including the first one, but it will prevent a competitor from being in the race for long." See how it sucks if you're the competitor there? And think if you're the consumer!
Guess why my company has sustained steady, 10%-20% growth annually, for 15 years? Because we decided against colluding. Seven of our largest suppliers offer us kickbacks, which we said no to. We're more competitive without them.
Did you think of the possibility that you have a better product, and you compete on a level playing field? If people were colluding successfully in your market, then you wouldn't be profitable for long.
I _love_ collusion. It opens a huge market for those of us who want to compete. It's VERY easy to raise money to start a business in a competitive market, even if you need 9 figures.
Wait, what?! Part of the point of collusion is that others can't complete! You'll simply be undercut or removed from the shelves. Or the cost to enter the market is too high. And yes, 9 figures is too much in the markets were talking about: Printers/Ink and RAM.
The biggest reason we've seen fund-raisers fail is when venture capitalists ask: "How are the government regulations in that sector?"
Let's say you go to some VCs to ask for money to start a new, competing printer company. They ask the question, and you reply: "Good news: no regulation! The flip side, though, is that we can't actually sell our products in stores, because our competitors pay them a shitload of money to keep us out!" Think they'd still listen? At least with some anti-trust enforcement you might have a chance.
When government introduces new laws (supposedly to prevent monopolization), the smaller venture capitalists exit the market. The bigger ones stay, of course, because they're powerful enough to subvert, or even write, the government laws.
What exactly are saying here? That the goverment passes new laws (certainly not neccesarily in any of these 2 cases) that have the effect of forcing out smaller VCs, allowing the larget ones to take over and rewrite