Comment by ryanmcbride | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanmcbride | Hacker News Reader

Seeing people defend the cassettes is weird. Here's how I look at it:

1. The company say's being eco friendly is important to them.

2. They manufacture, sell, and ship expensive plastic containers for their detergent.

3. The machines don't necessarily need this specific detergent, and will work fine by leaving in one of the "cassettes" and just using normal dish detergent.

This means that the cassettes were never necessary, and are purely a separate stream of income for the company. Literally the printer ink method.

Which means they didn't have to produce this plastic waste at all, they could have just allowed it to use a smaller amount of liquid or powder detergent (pre-portioned pods are probably too much detergent).

Hell even if they wanted to continue with the printer ink approach, they could have used powder detergent in little wax-lined cardboard containers.

Regardless of how well they're recycling or re-using the cassettes returned to them, the cassettes never needed to exist. It's more plastic taking up more space in more polluting delivery trucks.

At the end of the day this company is selling a dishwasher and a detergent subscription service. It's not the worst thing out there and it's not creating nearly as much plastic waste as the fishing industry but it's still a company greenwashing itself to sell you more garbage.

Maybe seems like "cheating" to refill as it messes with the business model.

My experiences are with Printers and ink. A studio I'm a member of inherited a big epson4880 printer. Its a big heavy machine, well built. It came with a "chip resetter" tool for refilling ink carts. The printer seems to know that its using non-epson inks (it warns me on the little display, and I have to click through) but it allows them (right now filled with cleaning solution, but thats another storry).

Newer printers don't allow this (unless you are in Europe). Apparently they are running out of DRM chips, and some of the new printers require a firmware update to use new ink cartridges using the older chips.

One can see a day when these printers/dishwashers no longer have ink/detergents manufactured for them, becoming big paperweights.

Companies never seem to want offer more expensive products with cheaper use costs. Maybe the problem is people don't think about it enough? Where I live the markets have 2 prices listed on the shelves. 1) the cost of the package, 2) the cost per unit of the package (eg cost per oz, cost per pill etc..). Its much easier to compare.

[1] https://shop.inkjetmall.com/Epson-SureColor-P900

"We are currently supplying the European Region versions of this printer model. They can work with a simple chip resetter and refillable cartridges (which we do not supply). Unfortunately, the USA Region versions of this printer have been designed by EPSON to prevent the use of non-EPSON chips and are designed to prevent the use of a chip resetter. As a result, we do not believe any 3rd party solutions may become available for the USA region printers for some considerable time until the anti-3rd party mechanism that prevents the use of 3rd party products is discovered and circumvented.."

> Companies never seem to want offer more expensive products with cheaper use costs.

Never?

A regular dishwasher has the cost of production built completely into the purchase price, and it doesn't care what brand of detergent is used.

It's the same with some printers, too -- including some Epson printers. Their EcoTank line is refillable: Need more magenta ink today? Just squirt some more magenta in. It doesn't have to be Epson-sourced ink.

Dishwasher manufacturers may not officially care what brand of detergent you use but they do recommend a specific brand often in their service manual and I have to assume that some amount of money changed hands for that to happen.

That sucks, there used to be a company that offered a set of gray gradiants for epson printers for printing digital black and white prints that are some of the best I've seen outside of darkroom prints. I wonder if the drm nonsense killed them off but I can't remember the name atm.

As for the paperweights, I have a pixma pro9000 mkii gathering dust after bad aftermarket carts and official carts being at least $100+. It is cheaper and way less time consuming to let a professional printer handle the work at least for larger prints.

> Companies never seem to want offer more expensive products with cheaper use costs.

A recurring revenue stream, often via subscription, ideally with vendor lock-in, seems to be en vogue, judging purely anecdotally. You saw it in printers and razor blades, but "x as a service" is everywhere, seemingly increasingly so now. Rolls Royce does it for jet engines with their "power by the hour" program, for example (and has for decades).

From a seller business/investor standpoint, consistent net recurring revenue can often be better due to the predictability and planning it enables. Also it's easier to "hook" a consumer with a lower up-front price.

From a buyer standpoint, it's often easier to get approval for operational expenses than capital expenses, whether from higher management, or from investors. Also consumers often simply won't do the math to compare the two models, simply picking the cheaper one and then totally ignoring OpEx.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com