Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

thesharklady.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#81

Post by lesterbuck »

mmagin wrote: post #70
artlogic wrote: post #62

The first major purchase I made on eBay was a HP LaserJet 5P purchased in 2000 for $200. I still use that printer today, I think I've replaced the toner cartridge 3 times in the last 10 years. At $75/cartridge, it's been a bargain. On top of that, I purchased memory upgrades, the postscript SIM, and a used JetDirect external box for around $50. Now I have a network printer that doesn't even need drivers to work. On t…

I bought a LaserJet 6MP on ebay about 5 years ago and upgraded the memory to the maximum. It's served me well since for general text printing.

After two ultra low end Brother laser printers in a row cratered on me, I went back to my trusty LaserJet 5MP/6MP class printers. Two years ago I picked up a 40K page LaserJet 6MP for $10.49, plus $26 flat rate shipping. It works flawlessly. Lately, I buy genuine HP toner cartridges from Image-Warehouse on eBay for $18 with free shipping. They come in plain brown boxes, but the cartridge itself is either a real HP C3903 or the best fake I have ever seen. Whatever, they work great and I've given up refilling at these prices. I print from Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X through an old, cheap JetDirect print server on my network.

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#82

Post by mattmaroon »

barrkel wrote: post #76
mattmaroon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investment required keeps the supply relatively low. It's not fair to call it a sunk cost when it's an annual $1b. Keeping up with the state of the art in printers (note the disparity in quality even over the last few years) is a significant ongoing expense. And the reason not to leave it caveat emptor is obvious: your brand suffers. When someone's printer goes bad they don't blame the manufacturer of the ink, th…

Are you saying that producing inks of the same quality as (say) 2006 requires a continual investment of $1B per year? Or that the quality of printing in 2006 was so bad that it would be completely unacceptable by the mass of consumers today? I don't find either of these even remotely credible. As to brand: I don't buy it, not for a moment. In fact, I have difficulty believing that you're serious. Anyone can go online…

Yes, people definitely blame the printer, not the ink. The printer is what is broken and has a big logo on the front of it. Anyone buying generic ink in the first place probably doesn't think it could harm their machine. If you think people are logical enough to know that generic ink could harm their machine, use generic ink anyway, have their machine harmed, and then blame it on the ink, you don't know very many people.

Print quality clearly improves annually. I'm assuming people who use ink do so for the quality. Anyone printing things in bulk where quality is not an issue (like businesses) is using toner, which is far cheaper. Other than photos, I'm not sure why anyone who printed enough that the extra price of brand name ink vs generic would amount to a dollar figure they cared about would use ink.

I wasn't claiming Apple products don't crash. Far from it. I was pointing out that Steve Jobs said he didn't want Flash on the iPad or iPhone because it causes crashes. He knows that the user will always assume responsibility lies with the company whose logo is on the device. How many snide remarks have you heard about the Blue Screen of Death, which was always caused by third party applications yet is used as evidence of Windows' suckiness.

If you don't understand that, don't take up a career in marketing.

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#83

Post by ubernostrum »

viraptor wrote: post #74
ramidarigaz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No joke. A 6-pack of blades in Perth ran me $50. Ridiculous. I bought the handle for maybe $10.

I was doing that for a long time. But switching to the rotary electric shaver was a great decision. It works perfectly and you don't need to change the heads for months / years.

I did that, too. Then I just grew a beard ;)

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#84

Post by hugh3 »

shpxnvz wrote: post #80
hugh3 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I use a Gillette Fusion. The blades cost about four dollars each and consist of six tiny wedges of high-strength steel sharpened to sub-micron precision and coated with a layer of tetrahedral amorphous carbon. The "razor" cost ten dollars and is basically a plastic stick. I'm not sure the old razor/blade analogy applies to razors and blades any more. Maybe it should be the old printer/cartridge analogy nowada…

The blades cost about four dollars each and consist of six tiny wedges of high-strength steel sharpened to sub-micron precision and coated with a layer of tetrahedral amorphous carbon. However, double edged razor blades with the exact same characteristics (also made by Gillette, btw) go for less than 20 cents a piece.

Oh, and I'm sure they're making a healthy profit selling me those cartridges, but the cartridge is still the high-value part, and not the "razor"/stick.

In my opinion the razor itself is deliberately marked up more than the cartridges are. Why don't they actually give the razor away for free? Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to try switching to a Schick razor next time I bought blades because the Schick cartridges might be twenty cents cheaper. Pretty soon they'd be having a price war. Instead, they artificially inflate the price of the little plastic stick, so that I'm kept locked in to Gillette products since "well heck, I already bought the razor..."

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#85

Post by me2i81 »

duncanj wrote: post #68
pmjordan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser printers are great for many things, but when you do need good colour prints of photos, etc., you can apply the same advice to inkjets and get good results. We got an HP Photosmart 8250 or so 3-4 years back. IIRC it was pretty much the most expensive A4 inkjet from HP at the time, but even that was only 2-3x as much as a mid-grade consumer printer. In any case, unlike most printers, it uses separate tanks for ea…

I find the Xerox (formerly Tektronix) Phaser solid ink color printers to be pretty awesome in this regard. They print fast and produce a glossy, professional-looking color print. I think the main problem is that they require more energy over the long term than a comparable laser.

Those are fine for colored text or lineart, not all that good for photographs in my experience

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#86

Post by shpxnvz »

hugh3 wrote: post #84
shpxnvz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blades cost about four dollars each and consist of six tiny wedges of high-strength steel sharpened to sub-micron precision and coated with a layer of tetrahedral amorphous carbon. However, double edged razor blades with the exact same characteristics (also made by Gillette, btw) go for less than 20 cents a piece.

Oh, and I'm sure they're making a healthy profit selling me those cartridges, but the cartridge is still the high-value part, and not the "razor"/stick. In my opinion the razor itself is deliberately marked up more than the cartridges are. Why don't they actually give the razor away for free? Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to…

but the cartridge is still the high-value part

It costs them 8 cents to produce the blade they sell to you for $4. They have a high perceived value, but that's it.

They've taken double-edged blades that were simple, universally compatible and cheap and with some product design and major marketing effort convinced people that they needed 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, and now 6 blades to get a decent shave. They've deliberately manufactured the idea that the blade has value, and used patents to protect themselves from competition in that area.

So, you can choose a Gillette razor that is designed from the start to require constant replacement of a $4 part, or a classic razor with a high-cost stick that lasts a lifetime and 20 cent replacement blades. Seems right in line with the inkjet vs. laser printer examples.

Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to try switching to a Schick razor next time I bought blades because the Schick cartridges might be twenty cents cheaper.

Of course. They do it because they need people to keep thinking of the stick as valuable. By paying for the stick, you've mentally committed which lessens the risk of jumping brands when you go to get replacement blades. That doesn't change the fact that the consumables are still where they make their money off of you.

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#87

Post by ajscherer »

shpxnvz wrote: post #86
hugh3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, and I'm sure they're making a healthy profit selling me those cartridges, but the cartridge is still the high-value part, and not the "razor"/stick. In my opinion the razor itself is deliberately marked up more than the cartridges are. Why don't they actually give the razor away for free? Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to…

but the cartridge is still the high-value part It costs them 8 cents to produce the blade they sell to you for $4. They have a high perceived value, but that's it. They've taken double-edged blades that were simple, universally compatible and cheap and with some product design and major marketing effort convinced people that they needed 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, and now 6 blades to get a decent shave. They've delibe…

Fusion has 5 blades and Gillette didn't make a razor with 4.

Also, in my experience the additional blades (or some other aspect of the newer Gillette razors) do make it easier to get a better shave. I was floored the first time I tried Mach 3 (which I remember getting for free in the mail) by how close the shave was for the amount of effort and irritation. Fusion has been a step up from Mach 3, but not nearly as big a step up as Mach 3 was from my previous razors.

I'm both cynical and cheap, and I don't watch much TV, so it would be really surprising if Gillette's marketing were strong enough to alter what I feel when I touch my face after shaving. Particularly with regard to the Mach 3, which I had never heard of before I tried it that first time.

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#88

Post by hugh3 »

ajscherer wrote: post #87
shpxnvz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the cartridge is still the high-value part It costs them 8 cents to produce the blade they sell to you for $4. They have a high perceived value, but that's it. They've taken double-edged blades that were simple, universally compatible and cheap and with some product design and major marketing effort convinced people that they needed 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, and now 6 blades to get a decent shave. They've delibe…

Fusion has 5 blades and Gillette didn't make a razor with 4. Also, in my experience the additional blades (or some other aspect of the newer Gillette razors) do make it easier to get a better shave. I was floored the first time I tried Mach 3 (which I remember getting for free in the mail) by how close the shave was for the amount of effort and irritation. Fusion has been a step up from Mach 3, but not nearly as big…

Fusion has six blades: five on the front and one on the back. I actually find the back blade "long-hair trimmer" to be really useful when I've forgotten to shave for a week.

I also testify to the "more blades is better". I had never had a decent shave until I bought a Mach 3.

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#89

Post by hugh3 »

zppx wrote: post #30

Just wondering about, how he estimated the price of human blood?

Seems rather nonlinear. Frinstance I'd be willing to sell you a pint of my blood for fifty bucks. Two pints will cost you five hundred. Four pints I'll give you for a hundred thousand, and eight pints I wouldn't sell for ten million.

Those prices may vary if you don't need it all today, of course.

source: http://askville.amazon.com/blood-person-lose-live/AnswerView...

Re: Obviously, HP Thinks We Are Stupid

#90

Post by cpg »

I'm on my second FAILED HP printer. I got them for their better support for Linux drivers and network printing.

One was a higher end all-in-one and it eventually acted up as if the firmware actually failed on purpose (acting somewhat erratically!).

The other one failed, out of the blue, with some mechanical gears issue. Their phone line recognized quickly the issue ("jumped super quick to conclusions," I'd say) and said it was not covered. They would ship me a new one fast and cheap!

After seeing how fast the ink went, we did buy ink and refilled them. It was not too hard, though it was a hassle.

Needless to say, now we're going for some other brand!

Post reply on HN