A
Arthur Entlich
It's not quite the same. Epson isn't suing over the ink, hey are suing
over the ink container. BMW doesn't make tires, they buy them from an
OEM, sometimes speced to the vehicle. Epson probably doesn't make ink
either, they most likely spec it and order it from ink manufacturers,
however, they probably make the cartridges.
The true is, the printers are just a necessary step in selling the
cartridges; they are, in effect, the container that holds the ink
cartridges. I will give the printer companies this, they spend a lot of
money in R&D, distribution, warranting, advertising and promoting their
printers. Yet they sell them probably at near break even costs. With
that business model they HAVE to overcharge for their inks, to produce a
profit. Dell realized it and so does every printer manufacturer. You
either make the money on the printer sale (where the real expense is) or
you make the money on the consumables.
Then hear comes these companies making ink cartridges or refilling ink
cartridges with ink that costs pennies to produce, and underselling the
ink (relative to the printer OEM) for one third to one tenth the cost.
They have none of the burden or the overhead in making printers, and yet
they can predate the ink and paper sales which wouldn't exist without
the printers.
But the question is whose taking advantage of whom? If the inkjet
printer manufacturers sold the ink cartridges at a reasonable price and
similar profit margins to the 3rd party, they would probably own the
majority of the retail sales. But they cannot do so,, if they give the
printer away. The right choice would be for the companies to charge
appropriately on the printers themselves such that their sale would
provide adequate profit that they could compete in the ink cartridge
market. That would make the decision to buy 3rd party inks less profitable.
Rather than spend so much money and effort on coming up with tricky ways
to make the cartridges non-refillable, and on court cases going after
refillers or ink cartridge manufacturers, all the printer companies
should resituate their heads and finances to have people pay for the
printers more in convention to their costs. Then this whole ink
business would sort itself out.
The whole industry, however, needs to agree to do so in unison, so no
one company has the psychological advantage of "cheaper printers".
Art
over the ink container. BMW doesn't make tires, they buy them from an
OEM, sometimes speced to the vehicle. Epson probably doesn't make ink
either, they most likely spec it and order it from ink manufacturers,
however, they probably make the cartridges.
The true is, the printers are just a necessary step in selling the
cartridges; they are, in effect, the container that holds the ink
cartridges. I will give the printer companies this, they spend a lot of
money in R&D, distribution, warranting, advertising and promoting their
printers. Yet they sell them probably at near break even costs. With
that business model they HAVE to overcharge for their inks, to produce a
profit. Dell realized it and so does every printer manufacturer. You
either make the money on the printer sale (where the real expense is) or
you make the money on the consumables.
Then hear comes these companies making ink cartridges or refilling ink
cartridges with ink that costs pennies to produce, and underselling the
ink (relative to the printer OEM) for one third to one tenth the cost.
They have none of the burden or the overhead in making printers, and yet
they can predate the ink and paper sales which wouldn't exist without
the printers.
But the question is whose taking advantage of whom? If the inkjet
printer manufacturers sold the ink cartridges at a reasonable price and
similar profit margins to the 3rd party, they would probably own the
majority of the retail sales. But they cannot do so,, if they give the
printer away. The right choice would be for the companies to charge
appropriately on the printers themselves such that their sale would
provide adequate profit that they could compete in the ink cartridge
market. That would make the decision to buy 3rd party inks less profitable.
Rather than spend so much money and effort on coming up with tricky ways
to make the cartridges non-refillable, and on court cases going after
refillers or ink cartridge manufacturers, all the printer companies
should resituate their heads and finances to have people pay for the
printers more in convention to their costs. Then this whole ink
business would sort itself out.
The whole industry, however, needs to agree to do so in unison, so no
one company has the psychological advantage of "cheaper printers".
Art
