Comments on: Still pricey after all these years http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:27:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631/comment-page-1#comment-26583 CGHill Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:38:08 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9631#comment-26583 Actually, I'd never intended to use it as a printer; I bought it for scanner/copier use. But the output was at least as good as I was getting from the old HP, maybe better on actual photos. Actually, I’d never intended to use it as a printer; I bought it for scanner/copier use. But the output was at least as good as I was getting from the old HP, maybe better on actual photos.

]]> By: Adam http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631/comment-page-1#comment-26510 Adam Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:03:47 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9631#comment-26510 Yeah, my friend loves Kodak for attempting to buck the trend. According to him though their printers are a bit more expensive; the idea being you pay more up front but save on the ink. So I'm not sure you'd actually end up ahead in the end either way. Yeah, my friend loves Kodak for attempting to buck the trend. According to him though their printers are a bit more expensive; the idea being you pay more up front but save on the ink. So I’m not sure you’d actually end up ahead in the end either way.

]]> By: scooby214 http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631/comment-page-1#comment-26282 scooby214 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:15:41 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9631#comment-26282 I once had a Canon printer that had separate replaceable ink vessels. You could either replace the entire cartridge, which was very costly, or you could replace the ink vessels alone. The problem with that printer was that the printhead would prematurely fail. That printer ended up costing me more per page than my dependable HP printer. I once had a Canon printer that had separate replaceable ink vessels. You could either replace the entire cartridge, which was very costly, or you could replace the ink vessels alone. The problem with that printer was that the printhead would prematurely fail. That printer ended up costing me more per page than my dependable HP printer.

]]> By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631/comment-page-1#comment-26280 CGHill Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:38:09 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9631#comment-26280 This was King C. Gillette's business model all along: let the razors go for cheap, and make it up on the blades. It works rather well, all things considered. And it also explains why there's a thriving market in cartridge refills, messy and problematic as they're alleged (by the printer makers, anyway) to be. Except Kodak. I've never seen anyone offer to refill a Kodak print cartridge. Then again, they're dirt cheap from the manufacturer: $10 black, $15 color. This is partly due to the technology, or lack thereof — Kodak uses a fixed (but replaceable) printhead and the cartridges are just ink vessels — and partly, I suspect, due to the "We want to do things differently around here" motivation. Certainly I'd rather deal with Kodak's tech support than HP's: the Kodak printer I bought was a discontinued model that used an older (and crummier) version of the printhead. When I asked them about that, they asked me only for a purchase date and a street address, and they immediately (okay, next morning) FedExed out the new-style printhead. Worked fine ever since. This was King C. Gillette’s business model all along: let the razors go for cheap, and make it up on the blades. It works rather well, all things considered. And it also explains why there’s a thriving market in cartridge refills, messy and problematic as they’re alleged (by the printer makers, anyway) to be.

Except Kodak. I’ve never seen anyone offer to refill a Kodak print cartridge. Then again, they’re dirt cheap from the manufacturer: $10 black, $15 color. This is partly due to the technology, or lack thereof — Kodak uses a fixed (but replaceable) printhead and the cartridges are just ink vessels — and partly, I suspect, due to the “We want to do things differently around here” motivation. Certainly I’d rather deal with Kodak’s tech support than HP’s: the Kodak printer I bought was a discontinued model that used an older (and crummier) version of the printhead. When I asked them about that, they asked me only for a purchase date and a street address, and they immediately (okay, next morning) FedExed out the new-style printhead. Worked fine ever since.

]]> By: Adam http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9631/comment-page-1#comment-26277 Adam Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:53:30 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9631#comment-26277 It's funny because a friend of mine was just explaining to me how the business model of these things works. According to him, companies like HP have patents on the actual mechanism by which an ink cartridge can be attached to their printers. They sell their printer on the cheap relative to its quality, and then sell expensive, proprietary cartridges that no other company can compete with. He said that Gillette does the same thing with its razors; the way the blade gets attached is proprietary so no one else can offer blades on the same stick. It’s funny because a friend of mine was just explaining to me how the business model of these things works.

According to him, companies like HP have patents on the actual mechanism by which an ink cartridge can be attached to their printers. They sell their printer on the cheap relative to its quality, and then sell expensive, proprietary cartridges that no other company can compete with.

He said that Gillette does the same thing with its razors; the way the blade gets attached is proprietary so no one else can offer blades on the same stick.

]]>