As people who have read this group for a while know, Bob and I have had
our disagreements about several issues, and in particular about who or
what type of intervention (if any) should be involved in controlling the
printer/consumable business model.
While I think we have some polictical and philosophical differences on
some fundamental bases, I think I could basically accept what Bob states
below, IF (and perhaps that's the stumbling block) the consumer received
an honest portrayal of the consumable costs involved with printers.
If the market "knew" the truth another these things, perhaps it would
respond in a more thoughtful and environmentally aware manner. The
problem is that's a big "if" and one which to date few printer
manufacturers have come to the table to advance. In fact, if anything,
printer manufacturers have become more devious in how they sell their
printers and consumables, and the average consumer must spend a
unreasonable amount of time and energy, if they can even unearth the truth.
Although, if you look carefully, you may find some yield information,
usually based upon a very low percentage coverage area, for most people
who use their printers in other than strict text applications (which is
most of us, especially with color output) have very little idea of the
expectation of output from a set of cartridges.
Just for now, let's ignore the major issue of the massive waste of
materials toxic and otherwise which occur by the inability to refill
cartridges, one which is criminal with laser printers which have full
drum units incorporated, as most do today (and that gets multiplied by 4
with color lasers).
But let's just look at a few issues directly related to how we could be
that "market force" by knowing what we are actually buying:
1) How do the cartridges you receive with the printer compare with the
full versions we find on the shelf when we wish to replace them.
Every dirty trick in the books has been used here. Some companies never
even mention that the printer, when purchased, comes with starter or
partially filled cartridges. Some printers come with filled cartridges,
but there is no standard regulation or do the printer companies
necessarily feel any obligation to state this anywhere on the package.
In some cases, the information is somewhere within the package with the
instructions, or an a CD, but that doesn't help when you are buying a
seal package. In some cases, the company sends you on a wild goose
chase on their website, where the information is buried, if it is even
there. In some cases, as a result of lawsuits, some companies now
offers replacement "starter cartridges" with the same amount as in the
starter cartridge that comes with th printer, so they can claim it is
one of the "regular for sale" cartridges. Often in these cases, these
cartridges are not stocked by retailers because they are poor value
relative to the ink or toner yield (for example, the "starter type
replacement cartridge" will contain half or less ink/toner amount, but
will sell for 75% or more of the cost of the full cartridge which offer
twice the yield. Due to shelf space considerations, or even lack of
availability in spite of these cartridges being "catalog items", those
cartridges simply are not sold at retail, so they only exist (in the
ether) due to the law suits which targetted starter cartridges as being
deceptive, due to their small yield.
As an example, one company sells a color laser printer which, at least
on the box, does not indicate how the cartridges installed differ from
those which one gets off the shelf to replace them, and doesn't even
provide a part number on the provided cartridges, but instead just
indicates "replace this cartridge with #XXXXX" which is the full size
version, implying the one inside is the same, but after a lot of
digging, I discovered those installed cartridges contained half the
toner that the replacement ones did.
As another example, also a color laser printer, I just acquired one
which does indeed come with full cartridges. At original price, that
printer sold for just about the cost of the replacement cartridges.
Since it is being discontinued, I was able to buy it at about 50% off.
My cost for the printer was $260 CAN inclusive of four full cartridges.
Current shelf price for the four replacement cartridges: Over $600! In
other words, I could turn around sell the cartridges at over twice what
they cost me, throw the printer out, and use part of the profit to buy
another printer with full cartridges! For the cost of about one and a
half cartridges they could buy a new printer and 4 full new cartridges.
What is wrong with this picture??
2) The next problem is getting some sense of the real cost of output.
It is all well and good to speak of 5% coverage per color and a yield so
based, but what does that actually look like? Well, it looks like a
typed page with some fair sized margins and a small color graphic in one
corner. Printers have large enough boxes that they could easily show a
series of say, 4 different prints (printed reduced in size from their
real 8.5 x 11") as examples of different printing output, and under each
could be an output number, based upon the starter cartridges enclose (if
that be the case), and the full replacement cartridges. Each image
would represent a typicial and an industry agreed upon output which
would be used by every manufacturer. Call them standard ISO #XXXX
output images. One could be a typed page, another a typed page with a
color logo, yet another with a color graphic and yet a final one showing
a full photographic image. That last one would use equal amounts of all
toner colors, for fairness, and under each image there would be three
numbers: number of these images that would result from the cartridges
installed, and output number that would be based upon a full off the
shelf cartridge. Then under those numbers would be a cost of ink/toner
per print based upon the list price of the OEM cartridges.
Yeah, I know, some printers waste more ink or toner, some images won't
have equal usage of all colors, etc. Nothing is perfect, but it sure
would provide a good start for comparing printers and cartridges, and
once people became aware of how these numbers worked, the consumer
(market) would begin to quickly settle out what it was that the consumer
was looking for.
Today, no one but the most wealthy or most daft (or both) people would
even consider buying a car without knowing the miles per gallon (or
litres per 100KM) for both city and highway travel and the range of the
gas tank. The fact that those numbers, by law, MUST appear on every new
car's window sticker and that those numbers are based upon a standard
system of measurement means they can be compared fairly. Those numbers
have been on cars for decades, and now particularly, they indeed have
changed the attention of nearly all car buyers, and the market has
spoken, especially with gas costing almost 1% of the cost of printer ink
or toner ;-)
So, yes, Bob and I agree, the market 'probably' could dictate the
direction of printers and how manufacturers sell their printers, but
only with easier access to real information to make decisions with. Now,
without any regulations, the market is dictated by deceit and
misinformation. With the system I suggest, it would be dictated by
knowledge and awareness, and although I have to admit that I am
sometimes jaded by the ability of the consumer to see beyond their nose,
I'm sure willing to give it a good college try if the industry will!
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/