Buying ink cartridges is a scam

De facto fraud - should be sued for

  1. Forums
  2. > Comments
  3. ›Internet
  4. ›All comments on the article
  5. ›HP: Expensive air in the ink cartridge
  1. theme
  1. 1
  2. 2

New topic Change view


  1. De facto fraud - should be sued for

    Author: VigarLunaris 05.03.17 - 08:51

    This is where the customer is deliberately deceived. Let's be honest, everyone puts refill cartridges in there, because you quickly notice that the "real" cartridges hardly have any reserves.

    But it also shows us that you are trying to print money with a lot of plastic, a little metal and a printer driver.

    Solution: easy!

    You prescribe how a cartridge should be, what capacity it must contain and how many pages must be reached with a cartridge.

    It would be quiet. Because the reduction of the Tine and "air" in the case only serves to maximize profit.

  2. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Silver fan 05.03.17 - 09:55

    VigarLunaris wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > This is where the customer is deliberately deceived. We are
    > Honestly, everyone puts refill cartridges in there, because you yourself quickly
    > notices that the "real" cartridges hardly have any reserves.
    >
    > But it also shows us that you try with a lot of plastic, a little
    > Metal and a printer driver to print money.
    >
    > Solution: Easy!
    >
    > It is prescribed to be like a cartridge, what capacity it contains
    > must and how many pages must be reached with one cartridge.
    >
    > It would be quiet. Because the reduction of the tine and "air" in the housing is used
    > only profit maximization.

    Refer to my thread:

    https://forum.golem.de/kommentare/internet/hp-teure-luft-in-der-tintenpatrone/man-sollte-keine-tintdrucker-mehr-kaufen/107651,4750330,4750330,read.html#msg- 4750330

    If we were to stipulate what a printer can or should do, then there would be too many demands and ideas that a manufacturer cannot take into account. So it is impossible to satisfy all interests.
    a classic average could be made so that everyone gets their demands implemented either with gain or with cutbacks.

    For my ideas, an ink printer should have an extremely durable print head, all mechanical parts should be made of metal. Engines should be long-lasting models. The electronics are attached in such a way that you can even repair something yourself in the event of a defect, free documentation for everyone as well as freely accessible service manuals for the repair. Parts that e.g. absorb excess ink (sponge) should also be easily accessible and replaceable. And for each color of the printer there should be at least a 1 liter tank for enough prints. Sheet storage space should be a minimum of 1000 sheets.
    Heavy paper / cardboard should be printable as well as labels and CD / DVD prints. Standard A4 format as well as single sheet feeder feeder for envelopes should also be there.
    When buying, the tanks should already be filled with ink (full)
    Either way, network and USB connection are mandatory requirements
    And that for a price of less than 150 euros.

    That there is no such thing is clear.
    But that would be roughly the key data where you could start.

  3. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 05.03.17 - 11:09

    > This is where the customer is deliberately deceived.

    No, it is a mixed calculation and every customer is aware of that. That you cannot produce a 4 in 1 device with scanner, printer, copier and fax for 60 EUR should make sense, even without thinking. The customer is expected to recognize that a top-of-the-range smartphone is not available for EUR 1 and that this somehow entails follow-up costs.

    > We are
    > Honestly, everyone puts refill cartridges in there, because you yourself are quick
    > notices that the "real" cartridges hardly have any reserves.

    Then it's good. Where is the problem?

    > But it also shows us that you try with a lot of plastic, a little
    > Metal and a printer driver to print money.

    Which is not forbidden at first.

    > Solution: Easy!

    Of course, because the problem: none!

    > It is prescribed to be like a cartridge, what capacity it contains
    > must and how many pages must be reached with one cartridge.

    Who is "man" in this case? Are we making a printer cartridge level and range regulator?

    Each printer package states which cartridges it requires. Usually the cartridges hang right next to them in the store. Each cartridge shows the range it has. This measurement method is standardized, tests show that manufacturers are not cheating.

    A simple rule of three and addition show the customer which model is the cheapest for him. Customers can expect so much price comparison.

    > It would be quiet. Because the reduction of the tine and "air" in the housing is used
    > only to maximize profit.

    Why "reduction"? There's never been more in there. There has been for over 10 years:
    Expensive printer => cheap ink
    Cheaper printer => expensive ink

  4. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: plutonium sulfate 05.03.17 - 13:25

    The only difference is that profit maximization goes on: With the more expensive devices, this does not change to the effect that the ink becomes cheaper or the device lasts longer. No, usually exactly the same stuff is built in and used.

  5. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 05.03.17 - 14:33

    > Only that profit maximization continues: Changes in the more expensive devices
    > That doesn't mean that the ink is cheaper or that
    > Device lasts longer. No, mostly exactly the same stuff is built in and
    > used.

    So at least at HP, the cartridges for cheap and expensive devices are very different:

    Hewlett-Packard black ink 51645A (for inexpensive device): 46.95 for 800 pages
    Hewlett-Packard ink No. 940XL black (more expensive device): 39.95 for for 2200 pages

    I can already see a certain difference, the ink for the cheap printer is about 4 times as expensive. Or do you have other examples of currently available HP printers?

  6. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: LH 05.03.17 - 21:50

    Oktavian wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    > No, it is a mixed calculation and every customer is aware of that. That
    > For 60 EUR you don't have a 4 in 1 device with scanner, printer, copier and fax
    > can produce should make sense, even without thinking

    Objection. Thanks to the mass production of standard parts, this should definitely be possible. Why not? What is so complex about a simple 4in1 device that it shouldn't be possible for 60 EUR? It cannot be the electronics, which should cost in the cent range. The few simple motors for printing? Or the cheap scanner that had hardly cost Solo anything in the past? (when you could still buy them).

    However, I agree with you that the 60 EUR should not cover all development costs and no profit will be generated.

  7. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 05.03.17 - 22:09

    > Objection. Thanks to the mass production of standard parts, it should
    > be possible. Why not? What is so about a simple 4in1 device
    > complex that this should not be possible for 60 EUR? The Electronic
    > It cannot be that it should cost in the cent range. The few simple ones
    > Motors for printing? Or the cheap scanner that the Solo hardly used to be
    > cost something? (when you could still buy them).

    Material costs maybe, but until the device is on the customer's table, there were at least development costs, the manufacturer earns something, the logistics are not free, the distributor in Germany earns something and the dealer also wants something. None of these are large amounts per device, but as you've already said, the profit from the manufacturer is likely to be negative.

  8. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: My1 06.03.17 - 09:23

    Oktavian wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> This is where a deliberate deception of the customer takes place.
    >
    > No, it is a mixed calculation and every customer is aware of that. That
    > For 60 EUR you don't have a 4 in 1 device with scanner, printer, copier and fax
    > can produce should make sense, even without thinking. The customer
    > It is also expected that he will recognize that a smartphone of the upper class
    > is not available for 1 EUR, and that somehow results in follow-up costs
    > pulls.
    >
    >> We are
    >> Honestly, everyone puts refill cartridges in there, because you yourself are quick
    >> notices that the "real" cartridges hardly have any reserves.
    >
    > Then it's good. Where is the problem?
    >
    >> But it also shows us that one tries with a lot of plastic, a little
    >> Metal and a printer driver to print money.
    >
    > Which is not forbidden at first.
    >

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogelpackung
    We had it back then in math class, in 6th grade or something like that in the textbook. there are laws against such air packs. and in principle there is so no ink yes ne ready-made packaging and there pulls mmn §43 abs 2 MessEG
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/messeg/__43.html
    "It is forbidden to manufacture prepackages, have them manufactured, bring them into the scope of this law, bring them into circulation or otherwise make them available on the market if their design and filling simulate a larger filling quantity than is contained in them."

    Asperger inside (tm)

  9. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 06.03.17 - 09:33

    > There are laws against such air packs. and in principle it is
    > No ink, yes, no ready-made packaging and MMN §43 abs 2 MessEG pulls
    > www.gesetze-im-internet.de
    > "It is forbidden to manufacture prepackages, to have them manufactured in
    > to bring it into circulation within the scope of this Act
    > Or otherwise make them available on the market if they are of their design and
    > Pretend filling after a larger filling quantity than contained in them
    > is. "

    I've thought about it, too, a few thoughts on it:
    1. The packaging is the cardboard box around the cartridge. However, the cardboard box is a suitable size for the cartridge. Lawyers are hair-splitters.

    2. The size of the cartridge is often determined by how it is handled. It must also be manageable for people with hands like toilet seats. A 5 ml cartridge in exactly the right size would hardly be adequately manageable.

    3. A cartridge is not just a packaging for ink, it is a technical article with its own function. At HP it usually still contains the print head, as well as a contact surface, electronics, cables, etc. On the one hand, this stipulates a certain size, and on the other hand, the cited law is not applicable at all, since the article is not packaging in view. Lawyers, on the other hand, are often hair-splitters.

    4. One must also ask about the purpose of the law, about the intention of the legislature. This is important when it comes to design issues. The legislature was not concerned with avoiding ecologically packaged air, but rather with protecting the consumer. Consumers tend to visually compare bags of crisps or cream jars and draw incorrect conclusions about their contents. Then it decides on the less favorable product. However, this distinction does not apply to printer cartridges. Consumers don't put HP's cartridges next to Brother's and buy Brother's today. He made the decision to buy the printer and sticks to a precisely defined cartridge. He can compare these with third-party suppliers by means of the price, but not by means of the design. That too makes an interpretation in the intended direction improbable.



    Edited 2 times, last on 06.03.17 09:37 by Oktavian.

  10. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: My1 06.03.17 - 09:35

    But you can also put more ink in it, it's very simple.

    Asperger inside (tm)

  11. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 06.03.17 - 09:41

    > But you can also put more ink in it, quite simply.

    You could, but that is not the intention of the law. The manufacturer has the right to determine the container size as he likes.

    The shape of the cartridge must be appropriate, because the law wants to protect the consumer from senseless shaping. The manufacturer can justify the shape well. When you buy a bag of crisps, you essentially buy air, there is no other way, that's because of the product.

    In addition, there are cartridges with significantly more ink, mostly sold as XL. Of course, both have the same shape, they have to fit in the same holder. And in the "comparison", the comparator deliberately selected only cartridges with a low filling quantity.

  12. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: No food lover 06.03.17 - 09:46

    You can also simply pay a realistic price for a printer and get a lot of ink for little money. Epson and Brother have models with ink tanks that can be refilled with a bottle. Of course, the manufacturers do not sell these printers for 50 euros, but rather call for 200 - 400 euros for it.

    See you,

    KK

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Make your own gods and refrain from tainting yourself with a vile religion.
    (Epicurus, Greek Phil., 341-270 BC)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    We provide AI Blockchain Cloud (ABC) enabled applications bringing Enterprise level synergies to vertically integrated business processes.

  13. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: My1 06.03.17 - 09:46

    Oktavian wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> But you can also put more ink in, quite simply.
    >
    > You could, but that is not the intention of the law. The manufacturer
    > has the right to determine the container size as he likes.
    >
    > The shape of the cartridge must be appropriate, because the law wants it
    > Protect consumers from senseless design. The manufacturer can choose the shape
    > but justify well. With a bag of chips, you are essentially buying
    > Air, there is no other way, that's just the product.
    >
    > There are also cartridges with significantly more ink, mostly sold as XL.
    > Of course both have the same shape, they have to be in the same shape
    > Bracket fit. And they in the "comparison" became aware of the comparator
    > only cartridges with a low filling quantity selected.

    for the last part there was an update on the page. 1. have made the assumption by weighing that it is not much better for them and 2. should still give pictures of its XL today.

    Asperger inside (tm)

  14. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: der_true_hannes 06.03.17 - 09:47

    Silberfan wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > If we were to dictate what a printer can or should do
    > Then too many claims and ideas would arise
    > Manufacturer cannot take all of them into account. So it's impossible all
    > Satisfying interests.

    Filling an ink cartridge not only with air is, however, not a completely exaggerated requirement. "Sham packs" in the supermarket are prohibited according to §43 MessEG. It shouldn't be such a big problem to transfer it to ink cartridges ... but only "in my opinion", lawyers are sure to find a lot of pitfalls.

  15. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: F4yt 06.03.17 - 09:47

    I would also have said now that, apparently, not so much has changed in printing technology in the last few decades. Most of the development costs should be through, at least as far as inkjet is concerned.

    In addition, there is actually no good excuse for the fill levels of the cartridges. I can still accept that the "introductory" cartridges are not completely filled, but "new" replacement cartridges? "Mixed calculation" ... lazy excuse when the cartridges are already as expensive as the printer itself.

    I can think of two "solutions". Either A) The sham packaging (packaging must not pretend more content than is there) or information on the packaging such as "contains nn grams of ink" or "is enough for n pages of text with standard settings".

    Alternatively, one could finally ensure that printer manufacturers are not allowed to block third-party cartridges. Would generate some stimulation in the cartridge market (apart from the refills). If the printers are (have to) be offered at more realistic prices, there you go. They are losing relevance anyway.

  16. for food...

    Author: Rulf 06.03.17 - 09:50

    Such sham packaging has been banned for a long time and is regularly warned by the consumer associations (but almost never by the responsible authorities) ...
    apparently there is a real loophole here

  17. Re: for food ...

    Author: Octavian 06.03.17 - 09:52

    > Such sham packaging has been banned for a long time and is becoming a regular feature
    > from the consumer associations (but almost never the competent authorities)
    > warned ...

    I just wrote something about it
    https://forum.golem.de/kommentare/internet/hp-teure-luft-in-der-tintenpatrone/ffektisch- Betrug-sollte-man-fuer-verklagen/107651,4750326,4750882,read.html#msg- 4750882

  18. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: Octavian 06.03.17 - 09:58

    > I actually think of two "solutions". Either A) The sham package
    > (Packaging must not pretend more content than is there)

    "Sham packaging" will hardly be applicable, since the cartridge is much more than a package.

    > or information on
    > the package such as "contains nn grams of ink" or "is enough for n pages of text
    > Standard settings ".

    At least that's what HP says on the outside of every package. And each printer says which cartridges it needs.

    > Alternatively, one could finally ensure that the
    > Printer manufacturers are not allowed to block third-party cartridges.

    The printer manufacturers give guarantees on the service life of the printer / print heads, etc. In the first 6 months, the dealer / manufacturer also bears the burden of proof of liability for material defects. Now cheap ink has been noticed more often than not to kill the printhead prematurely.

    I can understand the manufacturer from the position that he is trying to prevent this use.

    > If the printers are then offered at more realistic prices
    > (must), there you go. They are losing relevance anyway.

    Today the consumer is free to buy a printer at a reasonable price with significantly lower printing costs. I think very highly of the intelligence of my fellow human beings.

  19. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: My1 06.03.17 - 10:05

    why not just make interchangeable printheads which in principle every noob can change with a little rtfm and with less over-inflation the manufacturer could possibly get a better reputation.

    Asperger inside (tm)

  20. Re: Fraud de facto - should be sued for

    Author: der_true_hannes 06.03.17 - 10:25

    My1 wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > why not just make replaceable printheads in principle
    > every noob with a little rtfm can switch with it and with less
    > The manufacturers could possibly get a better reputation over inflation.

    Because the companies would turn off the money themselves, it is clear.

  1. theme
  1. 1
  2. 2

New topic Change view


To comment, please log in or register. You must also go to your account profile under Forum have assigned a username. To the login

  1. L-Bank, Karlsruhe
  2. Winicker Norimed GmbH Medical Research, Nuremberg
  3. PCV Systemhaus GmbH & Co. KG, Grevenbroich
  4. ALPMA through R. B. Personnel & Management Consulting, Rott am Inn

Pure golem
  • Use Golem.de without advertising

  1. 315 € (comparison price 359 €)
  2. 199 € + 5 € shipping (compared price 283.56 € including shipping)
  3. 204.33 € with delivery time (comparative price 234.90 €)
  4. 159.90 € + 6.99 € shipping (comparison price 194.88 € including shipping)


Did we miss something?

Email to [email protected]


© 1997-2021 Golem.de. All rights reserved.