The Shocking Truth About Printer Ink (and Beowulf chat)
tags:
Stumble ThisFor those who don't like advertising, click off the vid at 2:05. I don't usually like to submit ads, but this one makes a good, if infuriating, point.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
printer,ink,most,expensive,liquid,in,the,world,ripoff,inkjet,capitalism The Shocking Truth About Printer Ink (and Beowulf chat)
Comments  playlists with this video Armchair Politico by uhohzombies
• The Great 21st Century Housing Bubble by marinara
• Conversation, Anyone? by 10444
who voted for this video dystopianfuturetoday
- Fjnbk
- Issykitty
- siftbot
x94 - chtierna
- That1Swede
- kronosposeidon
- MrFisk
- daxgaz
- Xax
- mrsid
- drattus
- deedub81
- SpeveO
- MycroftHomlz
- Krupo
who has this post bookmarked Kevlar
- lertad
- legacy0100
- Fjnbk
The Shocking Truth About Printer Ink (and Beowulf Chat) Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 6. lore_weaver
(236 votes) 15. Nonbrainwashed
(181 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
This video is just an advertisement for their website, and they want you to think it's the cheapest place to get ink.
One nice side effect is that they are in effect subsidizing companies that do toner/ink refills, since the prices are so artificially high.
I got a Brother lazer printer with separate toner and drum, so I only need to buy the toner cartridges, refills of which can be had for about $20, which is way better then paying for a new drum every time you run out of toner.
Dgandhi is right (as always!!!
And they're each sold separately! Grr! The thing that pisses me off is if the yellow cartridge runs out, let's say, then I can't print in monochromatic. If one cartridge goes out, that's it! Poof! No more printing!
That is why ink is worth every penny.
Any of you see that God-awful piece of shit "Beowulf"?
Whoa! Whoa! Serious?! I fucking love, LOVE that movie. What? How? Krono-- You-- Whoa... Beowu-- Oh, man I--
[regains composure]
Would you mind explaining to the rest of the class why you dislike this movie so?
The problem is, giving consumers a $100 product that may very well outlast the computer they hook it up to is not a wise business decision... not wise at all.
The only way companies that manufacture printers can expect to see sizable profit margins off of the printers themselves is through selling ink cartridges just as this video describes - an eyedropper full of colored water for $40.
Is it efficient? Absolutely not. Is it fair to the consumers? Absolutely not. Is it incredibly wasteful? Hell yes. Does it make huge profit margins? ABSOLUTELY.
That's really the only rhyme or reason for it. Any one of these major printer companies could make a high-capacity, high-efficiency Inkjet printer with accompanying affordable cartridges - except it wouldn't make any money.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Any of you see that God-awful piece of shit "Beowulf"?
Whoa! Whoa! Serious?! I fucking love, LOVE that movie. What? How? Krono-- You-- Whoa... Beowu-- Oh, man I--
[regains composure]
Would you mind explaining to the rest of the class why you dislike this movie so?
HA!
Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little. Let me put it like this: I had REALLY high hopes for this film, because it's a great story being told by a great director. But then Zemeckis decides to add this cheesy CGI animation layer on top of everything. Don't get me wrong; I like CGI when it's used appropriately, but why did he have to use it on everything, even the bodies and faces of the real-life actors? It was totally distracting to me. I thought I was watching a violent version of "Shrek".
Also it didn't help that every third sentence by Beowulf was "I am BEOWULF!" And why did they even need John Malkovich for such a puny role? I hate it when they put great actors in tiny roles that could have gone to an up and coming actor instead.
However, after factoring in the Angelina Jolie nudity I gave it a 9.99999999 out of 10.
Forget about buying gold. Ink cartridges are the commodity of choice these days.
I personally enjoyed the CGI. To me, it was a guy's movie through and through. It had scantily clad women, it had gore and violence, it had well thought out action sequences (come on, that ending with the golden dragon was awesome.)! The CGI made it into a near photo realistic cartoon, and being a hardcore fan of comic books and anime from yesteryear, I was glad I didn't have to watch another "actor superimposed over CGI background" movie like, say, Phantom Menace.
And Malcovich's character was a Contagonist (embodies obstruction, envy), which is an important part of story structure, especially when dealing with archetypal characters which Beowulf most certainly does. Some believe the story of Beowulf to be a Christ allegory, which can also be said to be a monomythic Hero's Journey. Malkovich's character, Unferth, is jealous of Beowulf, because Unferth is unable to slay the Grendel. Hardly a puny role.
The "I am Beowulf" line is probably played out a bit because it sounds very reminiscent of the 300's "This is Sparta!" line which we've heard a zillion times now. I will concede this is unfortunate, and it also bothers me a bit, too. Still...
I AM BLANKFIST!
I know what Malkovich's role was about, but for the amount of screen time he got it could have been done by someone of lesser stature. That's what I meant by "puny" role.
As far as the rest goes, well, it's simply a matter of taste. You like the animation layer, and I didn't. I felt it was superfluous and distracting, whereas you found it enhancing to the feel of the movie. To each his own.
Hey, who let Willard stray off-topic?
^Hey, who let Willard stray off-topic?
Right?! What gives? We should give him the what's for!
Dude, you're right: it's a matter of taste. My taste rocks and your taste sucks! I kid. No, you're right. I still think that movie rocked anus in a big, big way, and it certainly is a movie that stands alone in Hollywood. I love it.
For those curious, the song is (I *think*) off of the album Space Age Bachelor Pad Music. No idea on the song title though.
Also it is worth mentioning that printers are far more efficient now than they were and consequently use smaller amounts of ink.
I finally tossed it and bought a laser printer. The toner cartridge for it costs about $60, but so far I've gone 2 years on one.
^I think Zorch works for Canon.
Nah. HP's are way better anyway!
No, THIS! IS! VIDEOSIFT!
*kick*
Then there are some motherfuckers who put chips with access codes or some bullshit in their cartridges to prevent imitations. Thus they make the cost of manufacturing the cartridge much more than it would be if serving a real purpose was the only concern. Also some printer manufacturers try to use copywrong law to harass honest cartridge undercutters.
I have an HP LaserJet 1020 still on the original cartridge after 6 months and 300+ pages.
>> ^QuadraPixel:
AHH HA HA! Take this video with a grain of salt. For my printer, to get the ink for their website would cost about $4 more than getting it at the camera store I work at! Yes! A camera store, not an office supply store! (though, officemax has it at about the same price I do)
This video is just an advertisement for their website, and they want you to think it's the cheapest place to get ink.
Agreed - I went with a local shop for my printer's refill, and IIRC, it was about $10 cheaper than the store.
Oh, and then check out ebay - DEALS!
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Any of you see that God-awful piece of shit "Beowulf"? The only redeeming part of the movie was when Angelina Jolie emerged from water, fully naked, with gold paint (ink) covering most of her body and apparently (to me) oozing from her delta of Venus.
That is why ink is worth every penny.
I didn't stay in the theatre long enough to even see that. At least I got my money back.
It's simple corporate greed at work here. Printers in and of themselves are not costly to produce, and (for the most part) are rather stable peripherals that one can easily get their full value's worth over a couple years. You can observe this yourself by walking into the nearest electronics store and picking up a decent Inkjet printer for under $100.
The problem is, giving consumers a $100 product that may very well outlast the computer they hook it up to is not a wise business decision... not wise at all.
The only way companies that manufacture printers can expect to see sizable profit margins off of the printers themselves is through selling ink cartridges just as this video describes - an eyedropper full of colored water for $40.
Is it efficient? Absolutely not. Is it fair to the consumers? Absolutely not. Is it incredibly wasteful? Hell yes. Does it make huge profit margins? ABSOLUTELY.
That's really the only rhyme or reason for it. Any one of these major printer companies could make a high-capacity, high-efficiency Inkjet printer with accompanying affordable cartridges - except it wouldn't make any money.
You know what? I sense a cartel/conspiracy.
You need one "eco-minded" rebel to make a high efficiency machine. They would instantly steal SO MUCH of the market share that they would destroy all the other companies in one fell swoop.
Of course, they probably have their goons ready to destroy anybody who tries to lift a finger in this direction.
Still, a huge profit-making scheme for someone with environmental zeal and a ballsy attitude towards life, I figure.
And where did the video creator get her/his stats from? Where does it say how much ink is in the cartridge? Did s/he count every drop from within? It doesn't make sense. Why should I believe her/him?
The one fatal flaw with that plan is that the efficient printer would have a higher up-front cost than the printers that are subsidized by the revenue of ripoff-cartridges. The ripoff cartridge companies sell their printers at-cost or less and make all their money on cartridges.
Yes, the critical question is whether printers are sold at a loss (so they MUST sell cartridges to survive), or if there's at least some nominal profit from the cheap printer sales?
The stats behind this are no doubt interesting.
BTW, applause for the new title. Seeing it appear in the top 15 had me laughing.
Seriously, the animation-thing was not what we expected and was part of the turnoff.
I'll stick to dipping my quill into a half-dead squid, thank you very much!
Did anyone else find the above statement sexually suggestive?
Novoseven, a clotting factor administered to stop uncontrolled bleeding...
First time I read that, it was "uncontrolled breeding."
right...
If you don't like the prices, use a pencil.
A trusted source tells me that roughly half of HP's revenue is from consumables.
Exactly. So would you rather have an expensive printer or expensive ink? Either way you are paying the manufacturing cost + whatever profit margin the market allows. If you want to blame someone, blame your own government for creating inflation. Do you think these companies are making more profit? No, they are offering less ink for the same price because the value of the dollar is decreasing and from a marketing standpoint, its easier to reduce volume than increase price.
Another example is McDonalds: do you think they are making more profit margin selling cheeseburgers for 99 cents than they did 10 years ago when they were only 49 cents? No, you are paying more because of inflation - because your government prints money out of thin air and has 3 trillion dollar annual budgets.
As a consumer, you don't have a right to a particular price, nor do you even have a right to a particular item at all - if nobody wants to produce it.