My recent post on buying a new bubble-jet printer led catsidhe to post a comment linking to a graph that purports to show the HP bubble-jet ink is considerably more expensive than blood or booze
( Read more... )
A narrow response to a specific part of a general argument...catsidheFebruary 6 2008, 03:37:26 UTC
The thing is that the combination of Moore's Law and the exorbitant price of supplies mean that that model as regards ink-jet printers has gone beyond self-limiting, and into the realm of Just Plain Stupid
( ... )
Re: A narrow response to a specific part of a general argument...catsidheFebruary 6 2008, 03:40:45 UTC
Oh, another thing which might be relied on to keep this model running is the design where different colours are in separately replaceable cartridges, on the theory that you replace one colour at a time, so the immediate equation becomes $50 vs $120. But all it takes is for two colours to run out at the same time, and $100 (with the knowledge of more to come) vs $120 doesn't look so good any more.
Re: A narrow response to a specific part of a general argument...catsidheFebruary 6 2008, 04:34:10 UTC
That's a hell of a premium for convenience.
Of course, that's assuming that very few people actually do the sums to figure out what the premium is, or, in other words, their business model relies on people in general being idiots.
Re: A narrow response to a specific part of a general argument...catsidheFebruary 6 2008, 03:44:51 UTC
I just noticed that when I use the word ‘you’, there, it might refer to any of half-a-dozen putative individuals or groups in the space of one paragraph, with no disambiguation.
Re: A narrow response to a specific part of a general argument...eruditoFebruary 6 2008, 04:08:52 UTC
Yes what you say is still quite clear.
One way to look at markets is as sorting mechanisms. People try various approaches and the market, over time, sorts out which works best in any given set of circumstances.
In a situation were basic factors (i.e. the "given set of circumstances) are changing rapidly, firms are put under more pressure while the sorting mechanism is, in a sense, constantly trying to "catch up". It is not surprising to see some weird and wonderful stuff emerge.
Then things stabilise and someone comes up with an "obvious" solution (i.e. one that matches the circumstances well) and folk wonder why they didn't always do it that way ...
Reply
Reply
But there are obviously some real pricing issues involved. Particularly given the existing alternatives as outlined by quatrefoil.
Reply
Of course, that's assuming that very few people actually do the sums to figure out what the premium is, or, in other words, their business model relies on people in general being idiots.
And P.T. Barnum never did go broke...
Reply
Despite this, I think you can figure it out...
Reply
One way to look at markets is as sorting mechanisms. People try various approaches and the market, over time, sorts out which works best in any given set of circumstances.
In a situation were basic factors (i.e. the "given set of circumstances) are changing rapidly, firms are put under more pressure while the sorting mechanism is, in a sense, constantly trying to "catch up". It is not surprising to see some weird and wonderful stuff emerge.
Then things stabilise and someone comes up with an "obvious" solution (i.e. one that matches the circumstances well) and folk wonder why they didn't always do it that way ...
Reply
Leave a comment