[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Marco Savo <savomarco at gmail.com> wrote:

[refilling toner/ink cartridges]

> Whatis this expensive printer? can it fly? can it make
> coffee?
> I usually saw printers that are cheaper than the toner or
> ink, they charge incredibly on it, generic ink helped carry
> the price down now

Not all printers are "disposable HP's"  :>
E.g., I like Tek Phasers which use *solid* (wax) ink.
The ink is quite expensive.  Since its just a block
of colored "wax", there's no real way to prevent
someone from manufacturing a counterfeit in exactly
the same *shape* as the original (the ink blocks
are "shape coded/keyed").

But, what if the counterfeit ink has a different melting
point than the original?  Or, stays "liquid" longer (once
heated) -- or shorter?  The printer can end up needing
an intense cleaning (remember, this is "melted crayons"
that are now "hardened" inside your potentially damaged
printer).  User complains to vendor about printer problem
(because user doesn't want to pay hundreds of dollars to
have printer serviced).  What is vendor's recourse?
*Prove* the user used the wrong ink in the machine?
How much does it cost the vendor (in time/materials) to
do this?  How much is he potentially *saving* by not having
to repair the printer for the user?  And, if he can prove
this (even though the user will probably refuse to concede
that he *did* use counterfeit supplies), the vendor still runs 
the risk of alienating that user (*customer*!).

The point is, if the vendor wants to avoid this pissing
contest, his best course of action is to design his product
so that it *can't* be operated with "counterfeit supplies".
That way, user *tries* to use counterfeit supplies and the
printer simply refuses to operate.  Smart vendor will even
indicate to user that the reason it is refusing to operate
is *because* of "invalid supplies" -- thereby saving a
call to support desk and a potential "argument".