You all know those cheap little packages you can buy in order to refill your printer’s ink cartridge, instead of buying an expensive full one. Apparently, there’s no real sense in buying fresh cartridges since refilling old ones works well and doesn’t deteriorate performance. I do, however, wonder whether this practice might seem bad from the moral POV to someone.
My opinion is no, since I’ve paid the full price for the printer and nothing compells me to buy expensive supply form the same manufacturer, since the purchase has been settled - on the contrary, it could be seen as immoral that the printer manufacturer wants to exploit customers’ dependence on overpriced cartridges. OTOH, one could argue that the producers of refilling packages try to make use of a product and brand established by others. Additionally, maybe printers would be more expensive if the manufacturers lost the revenues from cartridge sale, in which case buying refilling packages would be immoral.
What do I think? I think this has got to rank right up there with the most ridiculous “moral” questions ever asked. Maybe we should morally wonder if we should buy gas at the most expensive station instead of the cheapest? Or object to buying generic because the name brands might be morally better to support. Sheesh…
David: I don’t have much money. I have to print out a lot of things for assorted things. An ink cartridge at 30 bucks (55 for both the color and the black) isn’t always the easiest thing.
By putting down something that could save the little bit of money I do have I could take it that you are putting down those who can’t afford such things.
Something that could save me enough money to go out rather than sit home is important enough to debate.
I think the only thing David B was “putting down” is the idea that it’s “immoral” somehow to try and save money by buying a cheaper product when one is available.
I don’t think David was putting down anything(other than the OP’s questoin). He was just saying there is no moral component to the decision, only cost and ease.
As I see it, printer manufacturers are doing the same thing as IBM did with the golf ball typewriter - trying to make as much money of the peripherals (in this case the ink cartidges) as they can.
I can buy a brand new bottom of the range colour printer here for around $80AU - to replace the ink cartidges would cost me around the same price if I bought the branded ones. Even replacing the cartridges with generic ones would cost me around half the price I originally paid for the printer, so I have no qualms whatever about refilling the cartidges. Perhaps using the cheaper ink will mean the printing heads have a shorter lifespan, but the money I’ve saved on ink will alow me to replace the printer when that happens, rather than simply replace the heads.
Yes, MEBuckner and CarnalK are correct – there is exactly zero moral component to the decision. clayton_e, I really have no idea how you came to the conclusion you did about what I said. I suggest you try reading carefully before jumping to bizarre conclusions.
I guess it’s important where you replace the ribbon often. I have an HP 720 which is 4 years old; I’ve replaced the ribbons (it has 2) about 5 or 6 times=10 to 12 ribbons involved at a cost of anywhere from $20 to $25 per ribbon. That’s with the HP version (no void warranties for me ). I buy at Costco and I usually buy the pairs (Costco has had the pairs since I bought my 'puter, 4 years ago), and they are $40 for the black and $50 for the color. I just consider it a cost and don’t worry that I’ve re-bought the printer.
Actually many purchases are like that: maintenance over the long haul (several years) costs more than the original purchase price.
This question boils down to, “Is it moral to buy a loss leader product without buying more from the same company?”
Think of a similar situation: You pass a grocery store advertising milk for 75 cents a gallon. You realize that they’re selling milk at a loss in order to bring in customers and sell other, more profitable items.
Is it immoral to go into the store and only buy milk? No, because the store is taking a gamble, and sometimes gambling means losing. You aren’t personally obligated to make their business model work.
Printer manufacturers are also taking a gamble: they’re betting that you’ll spend enough on ink cartridges to make up for the loss they incur by selling cheap printers. But you’re under no obligation to actually buy that many cartridges. If you only print once a month, you could go years without changing the ink–you aren’t obligated to use more ink just to put money in Epson’s pocket.
(Personally, I’ve had next to zero luck refilling cartridges. I managed to extend the cartridge’s life by about two pages, and I spent at least half an hour refilling and cleaning up.)
I don’t bother with the refill kits, since my old roommate tried using one and ruined two shirts in the process without actually succeeding in refilling an ink cartridge. So in other words, yeah, it’s immoral to refill ink cartridges, and is in fact a sin comparable to eating live babies or cutting the tags off of mattresses.
You thieving, cartridge re-filling bastard! Have you no shame at all? Re-filling a single use cartridge is the lowest level a human can sink to! May rabid weasels rip your flesh!
Calm down, astro! Of course I don’t blame you in being deeply traumatised. (And who can blame you? I mean…cartridge refilling!!! What next?)
I don’t know…I think this subject is too hot to handle for the SDMB. We are fragile people here—fragile people. This cartridge refilling controversy will no doubt divide the boards in such a way that we will never fully recover.
Interestingly (well OK not that interestingly) there was an argument in Australia recently between car manufacturerers and independant mechanics, assisted by our competition regulatory authority, the ACCC. The car manufacterers’ warranties stated that the warranty on vehicles was void unless servicing was carried out by their own dealer networks. The independant mechanics argued that this was a breach of our Trade Practices legislation, because there was no evidence that their servicing was any worse than dealer servicing, and it was just a blatant attempt to force car buyers to buy uncompetitive dealer services. This was upheld, and now car manufacturers can’t void their warranties on this basis.
I’ve always wondered whether the printer manufacturers are susceptible to the same argument.
The issue here seems to be whether or not there is an implicit agreement to purchase more from a company that sells you a product at a loss. This is analogous to video game console manufacturers sell at a loss, counting on the sales from games.
There’s obviously no explicit agreement, and while they’d obviously like you to buy more from them, there doesn’t seem to me to be any sort of implicit agreement. They set the prices knowing that some people will buy their product at a loss and only that product. If they wanted an explicit agreement, they’d either make you sign a contract or simply raise the price. As it is, they gain more potential sales on peripherals at the cost of risking that someone might buy their products at a loss. If it really cost them more than it made them, they’d change that policy.
And so the company makes that decision knowingly, and there isn’t really any implicit agreement that you’re a party to - and so there’s really no moral issue.
I’ll agree. No real moral issue in the OP as-is, since the company is taking the risk that maybe you won’t need that much ink at all.
As to warranty-voidance, consider those printers (Lexmark and HP, for instance) that use combination printhead-inktank cartridges. This seems to me to mean that the printhead itself has been deemed expendable, so if the refill ink clogs it, well, you would have had to toss it sooner or later anyway. If OTOH the printhead were a fixed part of the printer mechanicals, the mfgr may have a bit more of a leg to stand on. (As for the warranty for, say, a printer memory problem, the Mfgr should be sensible enough to be able to tell that changing inks has nothing to do with it. But who’s going to take them to court over a US$70 printer and a US$30 refill?)
How about the manufacturers installing chips in their printers and cartridges so as to prevent the printer from working with anything but an OEM cartridge? It is within their right as makers of a product, to make it as proprietary as they wish. But then, is trying to hack THAT trick a moral decision? Would the Mfgr be morally bound to warn you in big, bold red letters right on the box and the printer faceplate, “THIS PRODUCT WILL NOT FUNCTION WITH REFILLED, REMANUFACTURED, OTHER-BRAND OR GENERIC CARTRIDGES”?
). I buy at Costco and I usually buy the pairs (Costco has had the pairs since I bought my 'puter, 4 years ago), and they are $40 for the black and $50 for the color. I just consider it a cost and don’t worry that I’ve re-bought the printer.