Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

It works for you because you print a lot (1-3 pages per day!). OP prints fewer than 10 pages per year.

There’s a $1/month subscription. You get 10 pages a month.

The author would pay $12/year for 10 pages per year, without the cost of the cartridge. You need 20 years before you reach the cost of a $240 cartridge. The cartridge would’ve dried out before then.

This entire article is an exercise in “I can’t do math”

Are you talking about something else? The article is about region locking which means, by definition, that the ink available in North America won’t work. Money isn’t the only consideration in these situations anyways. For some people it’s the principle.

More directly to your point - the author plainly acknowledges the sunk cost fallacy at play here. I’m pretty sure he can do the math.

I’m talking about the snide remarks towards InstankInk throughout the article. The GP says that because the author prints 10 pages a year it’s a bad deal. I’m arguing that InstantInk is a great deal for someone that prints 10 pages a year. The author should’ve said “yea, I followed principles here, but honestly I should’ve gotten InstankInk from the very beginning” instead of crapping on it

How would he get instant ink in North America with an EU region printer? Would you trust an org this incompetent to do that properly... or at all?

Anyways, he plainly acknowledges the sunk cost fallacy at play here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com