Hacker News Reader

Once again the "market" is abusing everyone in the pursuit of endless economic growth. Our economic system forces successful businesses into enemies of the consumer once they can't keep momentum.

Coupled with the concentrating monopolisation of the economy, this creates a phenomenon where helpless consumers are held at ransom: the ultimatum being that they either continue to be exploited in ever more devious ways, or to simply do without. Small businesses that spring up to fulfill the void are bought up quickly in order to squash any hope of real competition.

This is not an economy that works for ordinary people. Ordinary people does include temporarily embarrassed millionaires (and real millionaires, and startups and micro-businesses for that matter) on Hacker News.

The only people who are benefiting overall from these practices are major shareholders and those chasing endless quarterly growth targets.

Uh... Pretty sure the printer industry is holding literally no one hostage. As mentioned in several comments—this industry is dead.

My point is a general one - the printer market is doing exactly what all elastic markets do.

It's what they do if there is not a healthy market with lots of innovation and competition. It is a dieing (of maybe stagnant and on the decline) market where the few remaining are squeezing out the last remaining drops of revenue.

Competition isn't allowed to flourish when the market leaders use their runaway profits to buy up any and all possible contenders. My point is that this exact process can be seen across our economy, because anti-competitive behaviour is inherent to the economic system we live in. This is not controversial.

Selfishness and greed are inherent to people,the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater tho. We should push against the Facebooks of the world because other economic systems have proven to be worse.

Well, without hyper-focusing on printers, I fail to see the call to action here. I don't understand why "this is not an economy that works for ordinary people".

I consider myself pretty ordinary and my life is impacted almost 0 by the forces of elastic markets.

Inequality is getting worse and worse across the west:

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk

Businesses are choosing to use their profits to perform stock buybacks instead of innovating or improving standards for their workers:

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

Meanwhile the cost of living is going through the roof:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

And pay is not catching up, further aggravated by inflation:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1272447/uk-wage-growth-v...

In the UK we also have a 54% increase in the residential cost of energy (within the context of extreme profiteering from energy manufacturers):

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/03/business/energy-prices-uk...

And 9.1% inflation:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/uk-inflation-rate-hits-...

This is true across the world. I'm not sure what your life is like, but it sure as hell doesn't match the lived experience of many.

So what was your story 2 years ago when energy was cheap and producers were closing down?

What was your story on May 18, 1980 when no one was prepared for Mt. St. Helens to explode and people died?

Then you, by definition, are not ordinary.

The average person is impacted by capitalist market economy shenanigans on a continuous basis on nearly everything required to stay alive.

It isn't dead. I use my printer now more than ever for printing postage labels.

Will home printer usage decline? Probably yes, but just like I have a home phone that I barely use, people will probably keep a printer around just in case.

> Coupled with the concentrating monopolisation of the economy,

There is no “monopoly” in the printer industry and it’s definitely not holding the economy “hostage”.

We do not need the government to break up “Big Printer”.

Capitalism optimises for monopolies. Everyone agrees on this - this is why we have antitrust mechanisms. Unfortunately, they tend to facilitate and reinforce the problem instead of combat it.

My comment is a general one on markets at large, hyper-focusing on the printer market is only valid as a rhetorical device.

I shouldn’t be focused on the printer market when commenting on a post about printers?

The printer market is a commodity market - the very opposite of a monopoly.

Yes, when replying to my general comment, you shouldn't use the typical conservative rhetorical tactic of using the specific to ridicule the principle.

I was making a general argument about the pattern one can see across the economy. The printer market is another example of the same pattern that we see all over the place.

I don't claim that the printer market is a single entity that towers over all - my point is that our economic system optimises for this eventuality. Again: this isn't controversial, antitrust laws have been in place for a very long time.

It’s not “being conservative”. It’s “commenting on the topic of the post”

But which technology market is a legally defined “monopoly”? Before you mention the phone market, that was already adjudicated during the Epic trial and found not to be the case.

As far as “everyone agreeing that capitalism optimizes for monopolies”. The car market has been around for over a century, is it a monopoly? The computer market? Exactly which market around technology is a legally defined “monopoly”?

Your point ill suits the topic of discussion, and you're being called out on it. You shouldn't then resort to tribal epithets like "typical conservative", it only diminishes whatever point you were trying to make.

> my point is that our economic system optimises for this eventuality. Again: this isn't controversial, antitrust laws have been in place for a very long time.

This is a very strange argument, the fact that laws exist to prevent/punish something doesn't mean that everyone agrees that society is optimized to cause such eventualities. Laws are on the books in case something "bad" happens, it doesn't mean that society or the economy is structured to hurtle us towards those "bad" situations. It just means, they could happen and we need to deal with them. There are numerous laws against murder, but I doubt anyone would argue that everyone agrees that our society is inexorably optimized towards common and widespread homicidal tendencies.

> Capitalism optimises for monopolies. Everyone agrees on this - this is why we have antitrust mechanisms.

This is not even close to being correct. First, monopolies are almost always the products of government interference with markets; "natural" monopolies are rare. Second, antitrust mechanisms were not put in place by benevolent governments to help consumers; they were put in place by governments who were getting political contributions from the failed competitors of the so-called "monopolies", who could not compete on a level playing field and so went to the govenrment to buy favors. The actual results of antitrust enforcement have been to make things worse for consumers, not better.

> Everyone agrees on this

If you don't know the argument against your point of view, that is a good time to do some reading, not more writing.

IDK, I'm in my mid 30s and I really can't remember printers being alright.

I am the same age as you; when we were young the printers themselves were garbage. Constantly breaking, ink cartridges drying out quickly if you weren't printing regularly. Do they still have that damn ribbon thing inside of them? I seem to remember that being a constant source of pain for 13-15 year old me.

Now the printers, mechanically, seem pretty good. Some still feel cheap but not necessarily low quality. But all the firmware and software around them seems to be geared at whatever it takes to get you to spend a little more money. Stories like this one are exactly why I don't update my Brother TN-730 firmware.

My early laser printer in 1992 was great - the LaserWriter 300.

I don't remember printers having ink back then. They were all laser. Inkjets came later, but they were seen as toys to print large banners.

My printer memories of the late 90's were of cheap Canon bubblejet printers. The ones that were cheaper to buy than replacement ink cartridges, to the point that it was cheaper to buy a new printer than it was to replace the ink. Good times.

Printers became garbage when we switched from dot-matrix to inkjet.

Then they were horrible for 20 years until I decided to buy a Brother laser printer, and suddenly everything was right in the world.

I had a inkjet (bought for an Atari 1020?) printer in college. Four years plus graduate school, and all I needed to pay extra for was 2 ribbons which were cheap.

I was concerned my instructors might question wether I typed it, or used a dot matrix printer. None had a clue.

I was one of the first people to have a computer and printer, and I was embarrassed. It felt like cheating.

I will never understand why we as a society go from a device that works and is built well; to overpriced gadgets that are constantly trying to trick us to giving them more money.

I would like to see a ratings system, like that one we had here from I believe the EU that rated items on repair, but include any other shinaggigans after sale.

It's too bad Brother's caved in to greed. I was one of their unpaid promotional guys up until today.

I like to give credit where credit is due. I throw this in.

If you need a plumbing fixture buy Moen. I have two faucets that I have gotten free parts with for 15 years plus. I fill out a simple form, and send my receipt to them via email, and the parts arrive in the mail. In all honesty, I need to change my pipes to copper, or pex, but have procrastinating for years. Hence, I always buy Moen, and tell people just how good the company is. Moen recently changed up their lifetime warranty, but most products are still lifetime. If I was CEO at that they would go back to a simple lifetime guarantee on every product. It's free word of mouth advertising, and it's honest customer advertising. Once a company has word of mouth fairness on their side; they will actively have to make stupid decisions to not attract new customers. They should teach this in MBA day school. Just be fair, and honest.

Hmm, the only Moen fixture I have (shower, $200) was worse than the basic one that came installed with the house (~$20).

It’s nice that they give lifetime warranty though.

> In all honesty, I need to change my pipes to copper, or pex, but have procrastinating for years. Hence, I always buy Moen, and tell people just how good the company is.

What does the material your pipes are made from have to do with what company's faucets, showerheads, handles, etc. you buy? Also couldn't you replace your pipes but keep your existing Moen parts?

I'm as mystified as you are. All I can come up with is a misplaced sense that there's crap in the pipes causing failures of lesser fixtures, and hence the pipes should be replaced. Of course, not only would that likely be wrong thinking, it's also just a SWAG on my part. I really hope OP comes back with an answer. :-)

I had a inkjet (bought for an Atari 1020?) printer in college.

Captain Pedantic checking in: the 1020 was the printer. Your computer was likely an Atari 800 or summat. The 1020 was also a plotter, and not an inkjet.

> They should teach this in MBA day school.

it's a basic dichotomy of long versus short-term thinking. markets in general and their people tend to be on the short-term side.

I'm in my late 40s and I remember the joy of printing out banners with Print Shop on a Commodore 64 using a dot matrix printer. It was fantastic but it's been pretty downhill since there. Video to show what I mean:

https://youtu.be/BIltpheSZPs

In the modern era, I've just bought a cheap Brother black and white laser printer and called it a day. The toner lasts F-O-R-E-V-E-R.

> The toner lasts F-O-R-E-V-E-R.

Now you know why the manufacturer wants to change things.

They shouldn't. Just make a good product and ask a price for both printer and toner that properly covers costs and allows you to turn a profit.

And then get driven into the ground in a market that competes on up front cost pretty much exclusively.

I am mid 30s, and the Brother MFC black and white laser printers have been solid since I was 15.

I do. I had a number of great printers before they adopted the DRM to enforce their razor+blades model.

1. HP Deskwriter. Built-in localtalk networking, connected to two Macs over phonenet. Bulletproof, paper handling was great.

2. HP Laserjet 4N. Built-in Ethernet print server, fast, bulletproof. Worked with 3rd party toner just fine. It was priced to pay HP enough for the printer even if you never bought toner.

3. HP Deskjet 6000-series. 6210? Worked great, beautiful color, obsoleted by USB replacing parallel ports.

4. Lexmark laser, bought used, worked with 3rd party toner, fast, networked, postscript. Was the workhorse for a political campaign.

Since about 2007 I haven't been happy with a printer. The toner is very expensive and the products are poorly made and not easily repaired.

Epson Workforce Pro: needs to print every week or its jets dry out.

HP OfficeJet X page at once, a great idea, but the jets jam if you don't use enough color, and the paper path breaks.

Brother printers: always yelling at me for some reason, and they wear out.

Lexmark color laser: great physical printer but the controller board hangs. Too unreliable for business. Toner is expensive.

Before the Deskwriter I had printers I was less happy with. An Epson dot matrix, I mean, nobody liked their dot matrix printers, and an Apple Stylewriter that was finicky, not crisp, and didn't hold much ink.

Those HP Laserjet printers were just incredible. They printed pages so quickly and crisply. That warm toner smell :)

No, this did not go bad recently in a declining market. There were never good actors - inkjet printers were physical malware in the 90s, too.

The cheap printer market has always been an abusive, anti-user shitshow. Arguably bad for the sellers, too - I've heard an argument that making cheap printers was the catalyst that ruined HP.

> printers aren't needed by most people, and those who do need them don't need as much ink

Cool anecdote. Here in Brazil, some small shops and cybercaffes will offer copy/printing services to you for a small change. That's usually where people go if they have to print/scan something. BTW this service is also know as Xerox.

I saw some shops running on retail printers, but most use those printers you can just fill with cheap ink.

Funny thing with my printer - I bought a "SAMSUNG Xpress M2026W Mono Laser Printer" for £60 about 4 years ago. Thought this is pretty good - Samsung's the way.

Then HP bought Samsung and killed that model.

Now I see they go for £130+ second hand on ebay.

I think that says something about how the market's going to hell as it were.

I still love my Samsung laser (ML-2251N), but it will be my last. On the other hand, I was able to get more toner fairly inexpensively, so it'll keep running for years now.