tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4244760461330163321.post8335254710949682603..comments2023-08-28T10:14:36.305-04:00Comments on New York Leftist: Legal Blood Money - Updatedmisha trotskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07952201235224539716noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4244760461330163321.post-38815053873340081662010-10-10T19:15:19.860-04:002010-10-10T19:15:19.860-04:00One thing neither of us covered is that, apart fro...One thing neither of us covered is that, apart from subsidizing the cost of the printers (which you mentioned), the profits from the ink must also amortize the *development* costs of the printers. In the case of HP's "Z" series of printers, I believe I saw that quoted at 5 to 7 million dollars--for a product that has a definite lifespan and is something of a risk (HP lost money on its midline printers, which had too many problems and too many returns and warranty expenses to be profitable. So much so that rather than replace the B9180 and its siblings, it opted out of the mid-level printer market altogether). So the comparison to D-76 isn't really apropos, because presumably the only costs the sale prince of D-76 has to cover is the contents of the packaging and the marketing and stocking. <br /><br />And of course, in the "old days," there was a thriving subculture of people outraged by the high price of packaged chemicals. Patrick Dignan made a name for himself by "reverse engineering" the formulas of proprietary packaged chemistry [sic--that's what it was called, rather than the grammatical "chemicals"]. And many people "mixed their own" to avoid paying the high prices of the packaged versions. <br /><br />The numbers have gone up, because the costs have, but there's really not much that has changed.<br /><br />Mike J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com