Lexmark extends its "Return Program" restrictions to ink

Rick Blaine ) writes:
Arthur Entlich wrote:

I suspect the only way this problem is going to be resolved

What problem? Who's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy these
printers? If you don't like the cost of the consumables, buy a color laser or
dye sub printer. Uh, wait. Those printers cost 10x what an ink jet does...


Actually, they cost difference isn't all that great (3X for some) if you
can accept mediocre photos or graphic output, but the first refill of
toner carts makes the project a loser from an economic standpoint.

There have been a lot of these (cheap laser color printers) sold by now.
What if it craps out? Then you'rs stuck with $300 of carts. Makes even
the most costly -to-run inkjet seem a bargain.

Brendan

NO, I think you intentionally don't want to "get it".

The taxes and take back programs would accomplish several things:

1) remove the incentive to build garbage that falls apart or otherwise
becomes obsolete in a matter of months

2) remove the incentive to produce printers that are sold at or below
cost so that people would rather toss them than buy ink or toner for them

3) the revenues from these programs, rather than going into the hands of
the printer manufacturers would pay for proper recycling and reuse of
the materials.

4) The printer manufacturers would have a choice of properly pricing the
printers and consumables as a method of avoiding the extra tax programs,
which would accomplish the same thing

5) It would lessen CO2 levels due to less manufacturing, less waste of
materials, less plastic production, etc, which would slow climate change
- or are you one of those wingnuts who is still going around claiming
climate change is a myth created by 99.9% of the climatologist and other
scientific community?

When businesses behave badly, they need to be guided to more appropriate
models, and if they still don't get it, punitive taxes sometimes are the
stick when the carrot doesn't work. If nothing else, these taxes
sometimes help to reflect real costs rather than the subsidies companies
afford themselves for taking no responsibility for the waste, pollution
and health risks they produce in the "cheaper" methods they sometimes use.

Art

Rick Blaine wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:


However, since we are speaking about this matter, the problem is when
all manufacturers have resorted to the same business model and that has
lead to millions of discarded printers, which no one wants to take
responsibility for. The answer is a nice chunk of recycling tax on
items like this, or a mandatory "take back" program.


Right... And if you suceed in driving some sort of tax on printers, or increase
manufacturers costs by forcing them to build return handling into their prices,
who do you suppose is going to pay that?

I'll give you a hint - companies do not pay taxes, their customers do.

You seem to be mad that you have to pay more than the direct cost of the ink,
yet you want policies and laws in place that make everyone pay more for the
printer.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

NO, I think you intentionally don't want to "get it".


Oh, I get it perfectly.

The taxes and take back programs would accomplish several things:

1) remove the incentive to build garbage that falls apart or otherwise
becomes obsolete in a matter of months


What evidence do you have the printer manufacturers are creating such products?
Printers are notr obsolete just becasue a new model comes out. I see Epson dot
matrix printers still printing receipts at businesses all the time.


2) remove the incentive to produce printers that are sold at or below
cost so that people would rather toss them than buy ink or toner for them


And who are you to dictate what price a printer should be sold at? Direct
manufacturing costs (for the printer or the ink) are just a small part of the
picture. Where a manufacturer chooses to recover the investment in R&D, people
and facilities is their business, not yours.


3) the revenues from these programs, rather than going into the hands of
the printer manufacturers would pay for proper recycling and reuse of
the materials.


Now we're getting closer to the truth - it's the money you are interested in.


4) The printer manufacturers would have a choice of properly pricing the
printers and consumables as a method of avoiding the extra tax programs,
which would accomplish the same thing


And the control. You want to be able to dictate pricing policy for the
marketplace under the guise of being socially sensitive. Nothing wrong with
that, but you really should be honest about it. I would suggest that the last
political system that tried that failed miserably.

5) It would lessen CO2 levels due to less manufacturing, less waste of
materials, less plastic production, etc, which would slow climate change
- or are you one of those wingnuts who is still going around claiming
climate change is a myth created by 99.9% of the climatologist and other
scientific community?


Yes, standard tactic #273. When you can't win on facts, try personal attacks.

When businesses behave badly, they need to be guided to more appropriate
models, and if they still don't get it, punitive taxes sometimes are the
stick when the carrot doesn't work. If nothing else, these taxes
sometimes help to reflect real costs rather than the subsidies companies
afford themselves for taking no responsibility for the waste, pollution
and health risks they produce in the "cheaper" methods they sometimes use.


There's that control thing again. Good luck!

Why do you think the neocons have any more right to "control" things
than me, or anyone else who doesn't agree with your politics?

I'm not going to give your responses the dignity of debating them,
because they are both illogical and misrepresentative.

The nice thing about all this is that your POV is going the way of the
dinosaurs and the fossil fuels they helped create, as enlightened people
are beginning to recognize that corporations are indeed
"psychopathological" just as the "The Corporation" (movie) points out.

This planet and it's health are as much MY right to "control" as some
moronic politician or CEO, and since most politicians only care about
their polling numbers, they might actually begin to do the right thing
as the population becomes better educated.

The interesting part of all of this is that either people like myself
will get the 'control' you seem to so desperately concerned about, and
as such, even neocons like yourself will survive, or, the neocons will
get their way, and we'll all perish.

The sad part of this whole thing is that you're smart enough to get it,
but too ignorant to know why you should.

Yes, that's a personal attach... or perhaps 'an observation' might be a
more appropriate label.

And you can't even get the standard tactic number correct. It is tactic
#296 in the 2006 version.


Art



Rick Blaine wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:


NO, I think you intentionally don't want to "get it".



Oh, I get it perfectly.


The taxes and take back programs would accomplish several things:

1) remove the incentive to build garbage that falls apart or otherwise
becomes obsolete in a matter of months



What evidence do you have the printer manufacturers are creating such products?
Printers are notr obsolete just becasue a new model comes out. I see Epson dot
matrix printers still printing receipts at businesses all the time.



2) remove the incentive to produce printers that are sold at or below
cost so that people would rather toss them than buy ink or toner for them



And who are you to dictate what price a printer should be sold at? Direct
manufacturing costs (for the printer or the ink) are just a small part of the
picture. Where a manufacturer chooses to recover the investment in R&D, people
and facilities is their business, not yours.



3) the revenues from these programs, rather than going into the hands of
the printer manufacturers would pay for proper recycling and reuse of
the materials.



Now we're getting closer to the truth - it's the money you are interested in.



4) The printer manufacturers would have a choice of properly pricing the
printers and consumables as a method of avoiding the extra tax programs,
which would accomplish the same thing



And the control. You want to be able to dictate pricing policy for the
marketplace under the guise of being socially sensitive. Nothing wrong with
that, but you really should be honest about it. I would suggest that the last
political system that tried that failed miserably.


5) It would lessen CO2 levels due to less manufacturing, less waste of
materials, less plastic production, etc, which would slow climate change
- or are you one of those wingnuts who is still going around claiming
climate change is a myth created by 99.9% of the climatologist and other
scientific community?



Yes, standard tactic #273. When you can't win on facts, try personal attacks.


When businesses behave badly, they need to be guided to more appropriate
models, and if they still don't get it, punitive taxes sometimes are the
stick when the carrot doesn't work. If nothing else, these taxes
sometimes help to reflect real costs rather than the subsidies companies
afford themselves for taking no responsibility for the waste, pollution
and health risks they produce in the "cheaper" methods they sometimes use.



There's that control thing again. Good luck!

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:04_2h.257915$R63.103303@pd7urf1no...
Why do you think the neocons have any more right to "control" things
than me, or anyone else who doesn't agree with your politics?

Just a reminder - this is a printing newsgroup, not a political one.
Let's keep it on topic, there are plenty of groups chartered for
political rants.

- Bob Headrick

Printer manufacturers' business models and sales are both political and
environmental issues. The problem is too many people are unwilling to
connect the dots, which I find particularly ironic since these printers
create their images by doing just that.

It is the buyers of printers and their consumables who are best in the
position to be informed of these issues and to inform the political
"leaders" of this and to exert financial and ethical pressure on
manufacturers to charge the manner in which they sell them.

This forum is about matters concerning printer products and their users.
The methods printer manufacturers use to curtail reasonable
competition, foster poor consumer management of resources, and the like,
are serious issues for all users to consider and debate, and although
forums such as these mainly spend time discussing the use or
dysfunctionality of printers and their consumables, it seems fair game
to occasionally remind all of us that the methods used to market these
goods have a very real impact on not just our finances by our well being
(and those of other species) on this planet, as well.


Art

Bob Headrick wrote:


"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:04_2h.257915$R63.103303@pd7urf1no...

Why do you think the neocons have any more right to "control" things
than me, or anyone else who doesn't agree with your politics?


Just a reminder - this is a printing newsgroup, not a political one.
Let's keep it on topic, there are plenty of groups chartered for
political rants.

- Bob Headrick

Taliesyn wrote:
measekite wrote:



Taliesyn wrote:

Yianni wrote:

Lexmark announced its extension of its Prebate-style program to
inkjet supplies. On Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Lexmark released
the new Z845 single-function inkjet printer.

The Z845 supplies are offered at a $4 upfront discount, but subject
to the following restrictions: �Lexmark Return Program: The #28
black cartridge reflects a $4 up-front discount compared to
alternative cartridges in exchange for agreeing to return the used
cartridges only to Lexmark for remanufacturing or recycling.�

Apparently Lexmark has also incorporated another lovely feature of
the laser Prebate program: the killer chip. According to a source
from the media, the printer has a chip that detects a refilled
cartridge and turns off the printer.


Lexmark's polite way of saying to Lexmark printer owners: "You will
hand over that $50 to Lexmark or you will not be using your printer
tonight".
It's all about money. They want you to give that $50 to them instead
of keeping $49 of it in your own pocket after spending $1 on good
compatible ink.



There is no good generic ink. And all compatible means is the ink
squirtes out fo a nozz


Again you insist on lying when you have no experience to speak of. I
owned a decent Lexmark and there was absolutely no visible difference
in color, fading or clogging between Lexmark and the compatible ink I
used for it (from Atlantic Inkjet). It was a great product for a minor
league printer.

The fact that you think the junkie lexmark is decent reinforces the fact
of why you think that generic ink does not fade and of lower quality.
Why you even said that if not for money you would be using Canon ink..

-Taliesyn

measekite wrote:

Anyone who had a Lexmark shows their decision making ability is
questionable and should not be believed.

Much as I usually disagree with you, troll boy, you do have a point
there.