Sounding off at the Canon

The comparison may never have occurred to me except for parallel intervention. After consuming part of my lunch break hour to run errands, I sat reading the headlines from a newspaper. Although a Canon series 40 inkjet cartridge sat beside me, it was dirty newspaper ink that transferred onto my hands. A newspaper dusting should never take place beside a brand new black ink printer cartridge without risking comparison.

Judging by the amount of ink on me and what remained on the newspaper copy, I reasoned that there must be as much ink printed on any .75 cent newspaper than toner housed in a brand new ink cartridge. The question begs asking, why do consumers pay a measly .75 cents retail for ink and paper only to be extorted $24.99 for an ink product that has paper sold separately? Compounding the cost factor, my printer's ink cartridges are not available in cheaper generic models, the well containers cannot be economically refilled and no competitor cartridge can be substituted due to a lack of standardization.

Exorbitantly paying the manufacturer for continued use of a product is eye-gouging greed. It is revolving systemic obsolesces lining corporate pockets. I detest this ink industry like nobody’s business. Cloaked in the anonymity of a technological revolution, this may be the greatest consumer scam of the century. For me it has moved beyond an Andy Rooney pet peeve rant to a Michael Moore mission for reform.

From their ivory tower, the kind folks at the office supply store where I bought the ink expeditiously emailed me an Internet coupon for an identical purchase. Once printed, the paper coupon could hail eight quarters off my next purchase of ink. I studied the full page advertisement in huge thick text fonts displayed in a rich crimson color surrounded by superfluous decorative margins. I just could not summon the courage to hit print on my computer screen then watch the ink run dry.