Hacker News Reader

Comment by krisoft | Hacker News Reader

> I realize that style of writing appeals to the "us vs them" mentality but I'd rather read about the underlying economics and finances.

But this is the underlying economics and finances.

They can use a "razor and blades" business model because of all the things mentioned in the text you quoted. If they didn't do those things I could just order from amazon a cheap ink for their cheap printers from a rival and they would either go bankrupt or need to sell printers closer to what they make them for. But you can't because they made it illegal for the rivals to create those cheap ink cartridges.

In fact talking about "Razor and blades model" obscures this fact, not illuminates it.

View on HN

Well, you could point to the fact that there are alternatives to using "razor and blades". You can buy straight razors and re-sharpen them yourself. You can buy safety razors, which are technically still the "razor and blades model", but aren't based on proprietary designs, and just accept the added inconvenience that comes with.

And yet, still, many people choose to use "razor and blades" products because it's more faster and more convenient and requires less effort and lower buy-in cost than the alternatives.

Wait you are missing an instrumental point.

The “razor and blades” pricing is (as the market demonstrates) a dominant strategy. The other pricing strategy (cost-plus) is preferable for the customers printing a lot, not for customers who print little. Then add some customer myopia: I need a cheap printer, where cheap is initial out of pocket, not total cost of ownership. And there you have it: all suppliers ‘must’ follow the dominant pricing strategy because the myopic customer demands it. The twice as expensive printer up front just won’t get store space.

Brother might be (or, was?) somewhat of an outlier for the informed consumer. But who buys a Brother right? HP and Canon dominate the market.

General point is that individual suppliers in a multi supplier market have to take the dominant pricing strategy as a given, or differentiate along other axis.

The whole thing you are talking about is underpined by the fact that if someone else starts making ink cartridges the manufacturer can get the government to hassle them. If instead the government would say “though luck, better luck competing for the costumers next time” you wouldn’t have this system as the dominant pricing strategy because it wouldn’t work.

Imagine a world where Ford sells you a car you can only fuel at a Ford gas station. Maybe they enforce it by having a special tank cover only their pump nozzles can get through. And then when some other gas station makes nozzles which can also fuel those cars people paid from your taxes come and impound those nozzles as “circumvention devices”. Do you think that would impact the price of gas those car owners pay?

"who buys a brother" eyes shift left

... which is exactly "Razor and blades model", not sure whats your problem with this apt comparison.

People would like to buy as cheap as possible. That's unfortunately incompatible with printers business model (marketing + cheap initial printer + necessary sales later to bring in the actual profits). As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted, and end users won't win long term in such scenario.

So I don't really get the issue, its so hard to grok that you pay for continuous package? Why would companies building ecosystem let anybody who bankrupts them in? Apple also fights tooth and nail to keep their app store one and only monopoly. Or go elsewhere, ie I have Brother printer, not stellar but good enough, official cartridge costs 1/2 to 1/3 of cost of whole new printer. Seems very reasonable to me and I am happy to pay those 50 bucks once every year or two.

I also buy official batteries when replacing in say phone, absolutely 0 point testing stuff thats marginally cheaper and of famous 'chinese quality'. I am old enough and rich enough to understand that I am definitely not rich enough to buy cheap junk just and exactly because its cheap.

> As you mention they would go bankrupt soon if this is disrupted

Or they'd adjust and charge the real price for the printer? We won't end up in a world with literally 0 printer manufacturers. People still need printers.

They’d probably just focus on laser printers.

Higher buy in anyway.

> They’d probably just focus on laser printers.

And this would be bad?

A laser printer is objectively a better printer for most people, they're slightly more expensive up front but substantially less expensive in the long run while being better at printing the things people actually print.

Most people buy printers the way Americans buy cars, concerning themselves more with having the ability to do things they think they might do rather than focusing on being a good fit for what they actually do, and as a result ending up with something that is objectively worse at what it's used for most of the time.

A cheap inkjet is just a bad printer, it's not good enough at photos to be useful to someone who primarily prints those and no inkjet has ever been good at printing documents without even getting in to the inevitable consumable waste inherent to using them that way. I won't shed a tear if they disappear off the market. Make greyscale lasers the standard entry level printer.

> And this would be bad?

No, not really. Never suggested it was.

Does the general public still print documents more than once or twice a year? More and more things are all digital these days, but color is still useful for crafting and decorations.

Either way it's a more honest, honorable way to do business.

The printer manufacturers' business models are tailored to the artificial regulatory environment they helped create, where it's illegal to modify hardware you purchased and own, and illegal to advertise products that are compatible with a competitor's product. (or you'd be saddling yourself with 6 figures of court costs, which may as well be the same thing)

Imagine if your power company lobbied to make it illegal to send electricity through third-party cables, and then gave away power for pennies (because "people would like to buy as cheap as possible"), but sold 3-foot extension cords for $139 each (because of "safety", "hackers", whatever). Would you be ok with your power company going through these contortions to support a pricing model not tied to reality?

> Why would companies building ecosystem let anybody who bankrupts them in? Apple also fights tooth and nail to keep their app store one and only monopoly?

Well sure, they will do what is in their power, but their power should be limited. Why is it acceptable that these types of firms can manipulate the government to sustain their monopolies? You wouldn't accept them burning down the factories of their rivals. The kind of lawfare they engage in isn't excusable either.

One overlooked aspect of this approach is how wasteful it is on purpose, people often buy a new printer (that comes with half-filled cartridges) and dispose the old one because it is cheaper than buying the cartridges which probably are not even empty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com