Why Is Printer Ink So Expensive?
Why Is Printer Ink So Expensive?
You're viewing a single thread.
I didn't read the article but the straight reason is this: Printer companies adopted the "blades and razor" business model. The model was invented by Gillette, and if any of you here shave, you already know how it works.
- Sell a new razorblade "system" for a loss price. Design it with a unique attachment system, locking purchaser into buying blades only supplied by that business.
- Sell two pack blade replacement at about double the price of the original razorblade. 3 Stagger the prices of 3 pack, 4 pack and 5 pack, so they appear to add value, when actually the 5 pack cost of manufacture is still lower than the whole new razorblade "system" that was sold at a loss. But the 5 pack is marketed as "one free blade" based back on the two pack pricing.
Printer Companies did the same thing, sell a cheap inkjet at a loss (last Epson I bought was $49, a miniscule amount of ink and it had a scanner built in!!)
Now I offer you a challenge! (not really, you'll already know the answer if you have an inkjet and had to buy original refills).
A Brother MFC-L3760CDW is a colour laser printer/scanner/photo copier/fax/full duplex. It comes with (3 colours and black) enough toner for 3000 colour pages at purchase for a retail price $499.00
How much do you think it would cost you to get a inkjet printer, and enough ink to print 3000 colour pages? Also consider having a full duplex printer/photo copier/scanner/fax at your disposal.
So are you saying laser printers are the safety razors of the printing world?
It would probably be more appropriate to compare a brother inkjet... But yeah.
FWIW if you're reading this and you're sick of wasting tons of money on ink because you just print a handful of documents in black and white every year ... Get a Brother TONER-based printer. I bought mine almost 5 years ago and I've yet to have to change the toner or waste a single page on a bad print. When I need to print it just works, no "clean the cartridges" nonsense.
Toner is just a better printing technology, both for high and low volumes of printing. The only people that win out on inkjet are maybe the rare folks that print like a handful of things every single week.
The only people that win out on inkjet are maybe the rare folks that print like a handful of things every single week.
Also those who regularly print on certain things other than paper—print-on-fabric systems are usually inkjet, which makes sense when you think about it. And as of 10-15 years ago, some of the more expensive and complex inkjets (not the <$100 consumer loss leaders) had better colour fidelity than the average colour laser, which visual artists are willing to pay extra for.
The inkjet printer has a place, but it's a small niche, and 98% of people buying them really should be buying lasers instead.
As always, most consumers ignore the maintenance costs and buy the option advertised with the lowest price tag.
There are some inkjet options that do not follow that pricing model. The printers with an ink tank (epson ecotank, canon megatank, ...) with ink for 3000 pages start at about $150, but are probably slower than the laser.
I've not seen them, but I would imagine they are for office use, rather than home use. You would run into the same problem low volume inkjet users always run into, the ink dries out or clogs up the jets.
Toner has no such problem, and you can print 3000 pages regardless of if it takes 3 months or 3 years.
With their slow print speed, those cheaper tank inkjets are maybe usable for mostly paperless offices, or a home user that likes to print more often. You'd have to print at least one or two color pages per month to keep the jets clean.