|
|
|
|
|
|
by TheOtherHobbes
2150 days ago
|
|
|
I suspect you're confusing your personal - understandable - desire for cheap ink with "market forces." Basic business analysis suggests there are very few practical ways in which a newcomer to the market could produce a product with no anti-consumer features that is also realistically profitable. Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it. Note I'm not disagreeing that we all want cheap inks without gouging. But I am disagreeing that it's realistic to expect "market forces" to provide this when they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now. |
|
|
My assumption is that people who print a few pages a week would rather spend more upfront, and less on ink. It's not a technical question, it's a matter of someone making a standard inkjet printer and charging more for it while charging less for ink, and removing restrictions against third-party ink.
> Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it.
Why not? Why wouldn't people buy this if it existed? Why wouldn't a newcomer to the market go this route?
> they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now.
This seems to be true, but I don't understand why. Doesn't it just take one of the printer companies to break away from the pack?
Perhaps I'm overestimating how willing people would be to spend upfront to minimise their long-term ink costs.