Regionally Encoded Toner Cartridges 'to Serve Customers Better' 379
sandbagger writes: The latest attempt to create artificial scarcity comes from Xerox, according to the editors at TechDirt, who cite German sources: "Xerox uses region coding on their toner cartridges AND locks the printer to the first type used. So if you use a North America cartridge you can't use the cheaper Eastern Europe cartridges. The printer's display doesn't show this, nor does the hotline know about it. When c't reached out to Xerox, the marketing drone claimed, this was done to serve the customer better..."
Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed that for you, Xerox.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Funny)
Your edit makes the market-bot's statement more objectively true, but from the company's perspective, the customer's number one problem is that they haven't given the company enough money yet.
They're just helping their unfortunate customers with their money-infestation problem.
"We'll just take that nasty revenue off your hands."
Language Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The release was written in Neuspeak, invented first for banks and hotels in the mid-twentieth century.
In neuspeak, "for your convenience" really means "for our profit."
"For your safety" means "For our convenience."
Neuspeak is spreading slowly to other industries, as well, but its form and syntax were perfected when used on a sign on a shuttered bank office in Sycamore, Ohio, which read: "For your convenience, this branch is closed."
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you are perfectly right. After all, the primary purpose of any company in capitalism is to make more money, no matter the cost.
you are wrong
the primary purpose of any company in capitalism is to make more money for the owners
everyone else can sod off
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, capitalism as such is not the issue here, and the definition is as follows:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
So, a company has three major stakeholders (in no particular order):
1. Owners for which the company should make a profit.
2. Employees that should be taken care of so they can be efficient and make the company successful.
3. Customers that should be take care of so they want to purchase the products or services from the company, so it can be successful.
Xerox in this case seems to not fulfill #3. and for sure I will not purchase their products, or advice anyone else to do so.
Actually, I think it should be unlawful to make a business case where the actual cost isn't reflected in the price, which could be like this region based split or like printer companies selling the printer device cheap and the ink or toner very expensive.
At least the USA, Canada and EU should be able to make such rules as they have some concerns for the users and clout to enforce the rules.
I hope, but I may be dreaming ...
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Insightful)
"Actually, I think it should be unlawful"
You're not looking at this in the right way. It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.
Xerox is ripping us off not by region encoding its products, but by using federal power to criminalize whatever consumer forms of post-purchase hacking of its product that consumer may find advantageous.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:4, Interesting)
You fucking idiot. You wouldn't know how "real capitalism" would work if "real capitalism" came to your door and bit you on the ass.
What part of "real capitalism" includes the need to be able to hack a consumer products code to be able to use the product that you bought in the way you see fit? What part of "real capitalism" includes a company being able to embed a trojan in its products that it doesn't tell you about which will force you to buy the most expensive consumables?
This is the part that really set me off and prompted me to call you out as an idiot. Where in the motherfucking hell do you find anything about "federal power" preventing you from hacking your Eastern European cartridge? People who bought the expensive single-serve coffee machines were able to circumvent the consumable lock-in with a goddamn piece of tape. Do you believe that's also a violation of some federal statute? Because that is just as much "hacking" the lock-in. And can you please point us to the statute that says a consumer can't alter a consumable like a toner cartridge in order to use one from a different region? Or better yet, adapt a non-Xerox cartridge to your machine?
You goddamn libertarian mouth-breathers are always in a hurry to ascribe every bit of bad corporate behavior as being some sort of government conspiracy to take away your god-given liberty, and no corporation can ever be guilty of bad behavior. You absolutely will not hold any corporation accountable for anything, ever.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Informative)
Where in the motherfucking hell do you find anything about "federal power" preventing you from hacking
This law does exist, regardless of whether you know about it or not. I think it's called Anti-circumvention millenium.... here you go [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
you write:
It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.
Again, this has technically nothing per say to do with 'capitalism', but perhaps more with a regulated market.
A regulated market requires more rights to the consumers and in the last years, at least EU has put more emphasis on consumer's rights with measures against antitrust and mobile prices.
So, ev
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, government could get rid of at least the part of the DMCA that allows companies like Xerox to make the region coding stick.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing.
Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.
There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.
Until they end their customer hostile policies, I will not buy from Xerox. But I have never bought anything from Xerox anyway, so that isn't saying much.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Informative)
That's funny!
See, most of their customers, including their largest customers, are very likely to be unaffected by the change as they're not buying off-brand or foreign toner cartridges. (Possibly due to service contracts or vendor related issues.) Smaller companies are stuck for years with expensive equipment; even if they're upset, that anger will fade (or the person in-change of that decision long replaced) by the time they upgrade. Worse, if Xerox is successful, and region locking turns out to make sense financially, others will follow suit quickly.
In short, the market *can't* fix this.
If Xerox drops this initiative, it's because the cost of implementing region locking starts to exceed the projected losses from resold cartridges. It's not going to come from consumer rebellion, as the free market fanatics would have you believe, as consumers in this case are almost universally either powerless or apathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.
There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.
History has proven your assumptions wrong. People will gripe, grumble, and complain, but the companies won't care. Not enough people will leave Xerox over this to make a noticeable difference. Once HP / etc.start coming out with their next generations of printers, you can bet they'll be including this same region-locking tech in them. This is the same thing that happened when manufacturers started using microchips to decide you were out of ink based on the number of pages printed instead of actual ink level
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, he can totally go to one or 2-3 identical companies with identical products that do the exact same thing.
Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.
There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.
Until they end their customer hostile policies, I will not buy from Xerox. But I have never bought anything from Xerox anyway, so that isn't saying much.
Except HP did this probably 10 years ago. A genuine HP cartridge bought in Asia refused to work in a HP inkjet printer in Australia. I don't know if that still happens as I refuse to go near HP and I bought a B&W laser printer instead.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that all consumers have all the choices in the world, is patently false. This is a tired argument and I wish people would stop making it
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you are perfectly right. After all, the primary purpose of any company in capitalism is to make more money, no matter the cost.
yes and no... if you make more money but at a cost greater than that of the money made, then that is bad. For example, if you asked me for $10, but I said you didn't have it, so you gave me $20 with which I could afford to give you $10, I think you ended up worse off in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
this was done to serve the customer better
I'm not familiar with this "serve" sexual position by which you mean to fuck me in the ass.
Re: Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:4, Insightful)
And I say this having just bought a Xerox laser printer. I've since sourced the chips needed and learned who manufactures their toner so I can order direct. Since the cartridges in my printer do nothing more than deliver toner, I'll be refilling. With OEM toner.
Re: (Score:2)
what is the c*t magazine everybody keeps speaking of? I know plenty of c*ts, but none who work at a magazine.
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Informative)
what is the c*t magazine everybody keeps speaking of? I know plenty of c*ts, but none who work at a magazine.
It's not c*t, it's "c't", Which is somebody's clever way of extremely abbreviating Computerteknic. More formally, and translated to English, Magazine for Computer Technics. A venerable German tech publication, despite the brevity.
http://www.heise.de/ct/ [heise.de]
Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Your Xerox printer would create really nice pictures of Mohammed sucking donkey dick, which you could then distribute at as many European welfare offices as you can manage. Adding the caption PRINTED BY XEROX would be helpful.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the part I don't get about those terrorists. I mean, they could easily win over people by bombing the right targets.
Their PR really, really sucks.
to Serve Customers Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoilers: it's a cookbook.
Re:to Serve Customers Better (Score:4, Funny)
And not a very good one. This recipe leaves the customers burned.
Re: (Score:2)
gave it zero stars.
would not buy again, everything just ended up tasting like pulled pork.
Seems logical (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise you would end up printing in PAL instead of NTSC.
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise you would end up printing in PAL instead of NTSC.
The page size would be DIN A4 instead of Letter.
The resolution would be in DPM instead of DPI.
The printer would get 30 days paid vacation off per year from first use instead of five vacation days for the first year, two additional days per year until maximum 10 days off.
The printer might print on the left side of the page.
American words such as "color", "trash", "apartment", "cop", or "truck" might be printed as "colour", "rubbish", "flat", "bobby", and "lory"
Thanks XEROX from saving us from all this confusion.
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Funny)
OT: Metric pixel density? (Score:2)
Is it dots per millimeter or dots per centimeter?
Re: (Score:3)
We are stupid (Score:3)
After all this time, and something so blatant - does Xerox really think this isn't obvious to everyone what they are doing? They have to lie to us to justify it?
They do not have a monopoly, we can just go to a different brand that has some respect for their customers.
Re:We are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
And which brand would that be, exactly?
Re:We are stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Epson seems to be inching into the right direction: http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
epson makes tiny printer toys compared to xerox
Re: (Score:3)
Epson's $28,000 64" solvent printer begs to differ.
The two companies don't overlap in all the types of printers they offer, but they're both making both consumer and enterprise printers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung laser printers work fine for me, and I've used knockoff toners in them for years without issue. Or if you just print black n white, go for old school reliability and find someone selling an HP4/HP4si. Things are built like a tank and will probably last longer than you will.
Re:We are stupid (Score:4, Funny)
I used to have one of their cameras, but I kept getting injured by the recoil.
* sigh Â
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, they can collude with each other to make this an "industry standard" with some bullshit justification for why they need it; then, with 100% of the mass-producing printer/scanner manufacturers doing it, customers will have no recourse.
The second-best thing after a monopoly is an oligopoly, and in an industry that's shrinking because it's being replaced by something faster and cheaper (namely, using computers and the Internet instead of paper), they'll do anything possible to cut costs or raise re
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Feels like an election, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
That said, I have mixed feelings on refills. We've tried them off and on and had a lot of situations with bad product that breaks the printer; when there are probably 2000 prin
toner bottles vs cartridges (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps, but it's a choice by printer companies to save money and simplify maintenance. It'd be a bit like if lawnmowers had a combined sump/oil filter that came pre-filled with oil. Nice, simple, and quick to replace. But perhaps the filter lasts longer than the oil, or vice versa.
In a big printer, like a car or riding lawnmower, having them be separate makes sense. Diesel Trucks(and I'm not talking pickups here), often have different maintenance intervals for their filters and oil. For that matter, they'll often TEST their oil to make sure it's still good, because testing makes financial sense when you're looking at a 40 quart oil change vs a 5 quart one. In many cases they'll replace the oil filter only, pour in a new quart of oil to replace the oil lost in the filter, and keep on going.
When it comes to cartridges, there's 'usually' 1-3 components. Toner, drum, and waste toner storage. The problem you can get with remanufactured ones is if the toner (2k pages) is put into a heavily recycled cartridge without also replacing the drum (~40k pages) and emptying the waste toner.
Can't we just stop printing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we get through so much paper? Everything is electronic now, but much of it seems to need a printed copy too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have 10 billion records, you cannot do it on paper. If you have 10 records, I have yet to see an electronic file system that is as good as "I plunked it down on my desk right in front of me". Things that I can do with something in paper that I cannot with an electronic version:
- carry it with me and read it in public without risking an expensive device such as a a tablet, or using up my phone battery
- give it to someone else to read without them also having a compatible electronic device
- store it
Re: (Score:3)
If you have 10 billion records, you cannot do it on paper.
tell that to the people at verizon who print out the phone bills
Re: (Score:2)
I have always wondered how they managed [printing hardcopy bills for millions of customers].
I remember back when the iphone first came out att had to ship people their bills in boxes because they were so big.
They have many, big, fast, printers (that don't use region-locked ink cartridges). B-)
Their paper-handling systems stuff the bill into the envelopes automatically (along with the other miscellany), too, and the postage is also under permit, so there's a preprinted license indicator on the envelope and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At my work, one of the products we offer is to archive documents. We have over 250 million documents that were never printed.
Re: (Score:2)
X --- Here
X --- Here
X -- And Here
Re:Can't we just stop printing? (Score:5, Funny)
So of course I just opened the document in GIMP, rotated it slightly, added some noise, turned down the contrast and sent it back. Landlord was happy, credit union was happy, and all I had to do was forge my own documents...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an imaging solution that covers these use cases:
* 6-10 sheets of paper on my desk and compare and contrast all of them at once (potentially from different documents).
* Easily mark up paper.
* What if I need to mark 1 page in 10 documents for review (where the documents are considered a set)? And review all at one time?
Until we have desk surfaces that can meet some of these use cases, paper will be king. I've watched a couple of projects implement imaging, whil
Re: (Score:3)
Legal documents / Contracts - Because digital signatures aren't *quite* there yet, and most courts still only accept paper in official proceedings
B.S. digital signatures have been legally enforceable since the freaking Clinton administration, and almost all courts will accept legal filings (all federal courts do) and those that won't will generally accept a fax which obviously can be generated on the senders end without paper.
Schools - For obvious reasons
That reason eludes me, I know momentum keeps many sch
And by "serve" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They mean it in the "bend over and get 'served'" sense of the word?
God but Xerox and the other printer companies are ran by assholes.
And, of course, they can now use the DMCA to prevent someone making cartridges.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because idiot politicians have given all the power to corporations, and consumers no longer have any choice in the matter but to get fucked^Wserverd however is dictated to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you have a choice, we all do. Don't buy a Xerox printer.
Do you really think that the customers who buy these printers have that option? What alternatives are there? Tell us about their integrity.
Demand segmentation 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this is the next logical step from HP chipping ink cartridges to enforce an expiration date.
This must have looked like an amazing idea on some MBA's PowerPoint presentation -- manufacture the exact same thing, sell it for more in the developed world, -and- increase market share in the developing world. Just have to hope the customers don't find out about it....oops.
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!! The difference in this case is that Xerox can now force customers to keep paying the higher fare.
Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!!
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand. Hence any huge increase of ticket prices based on high demand is pure gouging on the airlines part. Likewise price increases based on a rapidly approaching departure time is also gouging as the time you buy your ticket also doesn't affect the costs of running the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence any huge increase of ticket prices based on high demand is pure gouging on the airlines part.
wrong, the prices could have been low in the first place due to low demand
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand. Hence any huge increase of ticket prices based on high demand is pure gouging on the airlines part. Likewise price increases based on a rapidly approaching departure time is also gouging as the time you buy your ticket also doesn't affect the costs of running the plane.
It doesn't affect cost, no. But it does affect what people are willing to pay. If I have something that costs me $10, and I normally sell it for $15 but you are willing to pay me $20, why shouldn't I take the $20?
Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score:4, Informative)
Airlines don't fly a plane. They fly fleets of planes. Increasing ticket prices on fuller flights is one way of balancing demand.
You're free to start your own airline if you think you have a better way to do it profitably.
Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score:4, Informative)
The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand.
No, but expanding capacity is indeed hugely expensive. Once you've filled every seat on a plane, costs become a lot more linear. If there's 'huge demand', first you trade up to a larger airplane, but this isn't generally cost effective for 1 more passenger, but going from a 20 seat commuter to a 30 seat one with 1 seat empty will be cost effective. Or a 150 seat 100% full craft to a 90% full 200 seat one.
After you're flying a bigger plane, you then look at 2 flights. But extra planes are expensive. Then, once you've filled the airport up, your next step is more runways, terminals, and all that, which is hugely expensive.
Increasing prices during high demand periods helps pay for the capacity that's only demanded during that period, it's very much NOT pure price gouging. By charging more during those periods, people like me who doesn't care about the holiday period that much will pick non-holiday periods to fly, evening out demand. By charging less during low demand periods, they get value-seekers flying during those periods, again, evening out demand, allowing steadier use of their aircraft and personnel. Beyond standard tricks like ensuring 'every' aircraft possible is flying during high demand periods, as opposed to being in maintenance, for example.
Why do airlines charge more for last minute tickets? Because they cost the airlines more. In order to even offer the service, they can't overbook flights as much, you often have to take inefficient routing, and they can't anticipate those sales. It's like dinners that are $25 pre-order, $30 at the door. Why the extra $5? Because pre-ordered tickets are a known factor - they know how many are showing up, so they have supplies for that. They have to guess at how many people will just show up, so that can mean wasted food, thus the higher charge - and don't forget the factor that they want you to pre-order.
Oh yeah, and if you're buying last minute at the airport you're GOING to show up, they can't apply the 'might not show up but we get to keep your money' discount.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of operating a plane does not significantly change based on passenger demand.
Demand? No. But it does make a difference based on the number of passengers: fuel costs. Last minute changes can affect carefully laid out plans.
Simple example: My roomate used to work as a driver for a trucking company. Since fuel is expensive, the company bought it wholesale and dispensed it at their facilities. They would also plan routes so that the driver could fill up using their fuel at their facilities versus stopping at a truck-stop along the freeway, where gasoline was considerably more expe
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, airlines in the USA are generally running almost all their flights at full capacity right now. Especially the major carriers. Competition has made them run with nearly 100% load factors nearly every day of the week.
Business travelers dominate Sunday, Monday, Friday and Saturday leaving Tuesday - Thursday for non-business travelers. Middle of the week is where the deals are now, but because they have reduced capacity so much, business travel is being squished into these days as well.
The 2015 domestic load factor is 83.68% right now - which is indeed extremely high. Many flights are full at such a high load factor, but not all of them are. There are still "red-eyes" and other off-peak flights that have loads well below 50%, and the fact that they don't charge high fares (to cover the full cost of flying the plane) for those flights - the rates are discounted in fact - shows that the principle of some flights subsidizing others is still in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases or travel over holidays even though the customer is getting the same service -- moving them from point to point. Why? Because they can!!
Because there are fewer seats available at the last minute. When supply goes down, prices go up. Also, there is greater demand over holidays, so again prices go up.
This is true in general, but you're ignoring that airlines absolutely tailor fares based on who you are to maximize revenue, regardless of a route's capacity or load. If your travel pattern indicates that you are a "business flyer" your ticket will absolutely be more expensive than would otherwise be the case (for look at pricing on a round trip flight that does not have a Saturday in the middle of your itinerary, vs one that does. Same flights, same days even, but if you don't stay on Saturday, the ticket
Re: (Score:3)
This is true in general, but you're ignoring that airlines absolutely tailor fares based on who you are to maximize revenue, regardless of a route's capacity or load. If your travel pattern indicates that you are a "business flyer" your ticket will absolutely be more expensive than would otherwise be the case (for look at pricing on a round trip flight that does not have a Saturday in the middle of your itinerary, vs one that does. Same flights, same days even, but if you don't stay on Saturday, the ticket is significantly more expensive).
That's not so much tailoring based on a perceived "class" (businessman, leisure traveler, etc) but to spread out demand. Prices vary not only over days of the week but also different times throughout the day. While one goal is certainly to maximize revenue (honestly, what business doesn't do that?) the goal is also to spread out demand to take pressure off of peak flights. There are fixed costs that come into play with every flight regardless if it leave full or goes out empty. By pushing passengers to
Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Far-in-advance purchases, airline hasn't decided 100% to have the flight yet. Prices are a little higher because early demand can dictate whether or not the flight even occurs or not. If the supply (ie, the flight) is not guaranteed, then the burden falls on demand.
Once enough tickets are booked to make the flight likely, the airline now wants to sell as many seats as possible, so prices drop as supply now outstrips demand. The airline knows about how much per-seat it costs to fly the plane both occuppied and empty, so it's in their interest to sell seats even sometimes at a loss if it is less of a loss than flying without passengers, and based on past performance they can attempt to balance that number.
As the plane approaches capacity the airlines start adjusting the nature of supply and demand. They know that last-minute passengers are unlikely to purchase expensive first-class seats regardless of a lack of availablity of coach seats, so if the first-class cabin is empty or mostly empty they'll upgrade frequent flyers so that their less-expensive coach seats can now be priced at a high but not impossibly-high price for last-minute fares.
When you fly the same route a lot, you learn how that route is priced throughout the year and how the various flights on that route fill. We've found the most common flight we use about six times a year makes sense to book 8 to 6 weeks out from flying, depending on what holidays are around then and if there are any other large-travel days like the start or end of college.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines do this all the time. They charge more for last minute purchases...,
Because if they didn't, too many would wait until the last minute to buy their tickets. That would create a logistical nightmare for the airlines who have to schedule planes days to weeks in advance.
Re: (Score:3)
Airlines set their schedules months in advance based on previous passenger load data, so all the aircraft and crews are committed. Most can't just not fly planes at the last second because most airlines operate on very tight schedules, where having a plane not showing up somewhere on time bubbles through the entire system. Back when airlines hadn't figured out how to get 90+% load factors on planes, you would sometimes see (especially late night) planes fly nearly empty because they were needed at that airp
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right for the most part about airlines, but there are definite cost savings if an airline can plan flights efficiently ahead of time. It is not ridiculous to have an extra fee for last minute bookings, or perhaps a better way of putting it is that it is not ridiculous to have a discount for early registration.
What is ridiculous is what they actually charge you while using that excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines? Pffft, amateurs. Look at the price of DVDs here and in the far east. Hint: You can't rip DVDs as cheaply as you can buy the original on some markets.
Of course, those DVDs won't play in your player. Who do you think you are that you could import them yourself? That's the studios' job, after they benefit from the cheap labour there.
Its a Cook Book!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Its a cook book!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like a guide to uploading customer consciousnesses to virtual realities.
Talked to our purchasing dept. (Score:5, Informative)
.
When companies are so blatant about wanting to overcharge their customers, it makes it real easy to identify them and remove the bad companies from our approved vendor list.
Re: (Score:2)
They have their rights, can we have ours back? (Score:3)
Certainly Xerox can manufacture whatever products they like. We have the right not to buy them (and, say, buy from the competition). Two remarks anyway:
1. Doing this in secret is underhanded, and they should be upfront, Despite the negative reaction by some members of the public ("it's unfair that I'm paying more than X"), there is nothing wrong with a company trying for market segmentation. They should tell the complainers to grow up
2. Everyone should own whatever they own. So, if I own a printer or a toner cartridge, I should have the right to modify and reprogram them however I like (say, to report a different zone or to ignore zonal coding). Courts have rebuffed Xerox and Lexmark as they attempted to use the DMCA to protect their business strategies, but the DMCA (US), Bill C-11 (Canada) and their worldwide clones still apply to DVD-players, for example. That should stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Another point, by tying you to a specific replacement part, it artificially raises the price sine you do not have an option to shop around. That's anti-fre
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They have their rights, can we have ours back? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no right to create an artificial monopoly. ESPECIALLY do they not have any right to keep people from breaking said monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been going on for decades (Score:5, Informative)
Just take our money! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just put a gun to our heads and take our money? Fuck Xerox!
it's much more fun (and safe) to convince you to part with your money willingly
Region Locking (Score:5, Interesting)
So if they region lock it so we can't use the (same, but) cheaper cartridges from Eastern Europe and Asia, can we region lock it so they can't use the cheaper workers from Easter Europe and Asia?
how they do it anyway? (Score:2)
I'm wondering about how the printer driver is capable of figuring out the installation location and select it at the time of first use. At least with the CD units of old, a pop-up window asking you to confirm the region was issued. Here, though, they claim that the selection is silent, without notifying the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
As the summary says the printer remembers the region of the first cartridge used. Printers are packaged with different cartridges for a region and then shipped to that region.
What did you expect him to say? The truth? (Score:5, Informative)
"Yeah, we did that to ensure that we can gouge as much as possible. You see, international trade and benefiting from cheap labor abroad is only good if we can profit from it, not when it cuts into our profits."
Seriously? Did you expect him to tell you the truth? C'mon, be reasonable.
Could be illegal? (Score:3)
If any of these countries are part of the Eurozone and this is preventing someone from one part of the EU using something from another part of the EU, then Xerox will have some answering to do. EU laws, from my understanding, make this sort of thing illegal within its territory.
If you are region locked to the whole Eurozone, then that is okay. Of course it doesn't change that this is a dick move, on the part of Xerox, IMO.
We're providing a valuable service here! (Score:2)
By taking more money from our customers, it ensures that they have less money to waste of fatty foods and sugary sodas, ensuring better health for them.
YOU'RE WELCOME!
Re: (Score:3)
This is done all the time with disposables in medical devices.
yes indeed, the risk of death is the same for toner cartridges and medical devices
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like "Value Edition"?