Printers

Hoof_Hearted

It is quite clear that printer manufacturers sell their printers at below cost price with the aim of recouping the money on cartridges. This leads to the ridiculous situation where the cost of toner or a set of ink cartridges is more that the cost of the machine. Using remanufactured cartridges obviously helps but may invalidate the warranty if something goes wrong.

The makers are also crafty enough to put very low capacity catridges in the new machines so they run out quickly, otherwise it would be cheaper just to get another machine when the ink runs out. I would rather pay more upfront and have realistic running costs, but there is obviously more profit in the reverse.

The Konica machine I have cost £118 inc Vat and delivery. One new Konica high capacity cartridge costs £120. Crazy!

Azari

It is a ridiculous situation.

I got a Dell colour laser a few years ago and it would have been cheaper to get two rather than one and replacement cartridges.

However there is an active market in third party toners (and inks) and it is quite easy to get results indistinguishable from the manufacturer's replacements.

The Dell cartridges for my printer would have cost ~ £300 and the third party versions were £25! And they work perfectly.

The only caveat is not to go for the absolute cheapest and try and buy from somewhere where you can see some reviews.

Also note that if ever a discussion about any type of third party substitute (e.g. Ink, toner, batteries, memory cards) comes up on forums you will very likely get a a lot of people saying they have used them quite happily but find one post from someone who claims to be a 'technician' who can't tell you how many printers/cameras/phones/whatever he has seen completely destroyed by someone using a non manufacturer replacement. I sometimes think that these are people with a vested interest in selling the ultra high priced replacements and haven't actually seem the death and destruction they claim.

pmduk

Azari wrote: »

Also note that if ever a discussion about any type of third party substitute (e.g. Ink, toner, batteries, memory cards) comes up on forums you will very likely get a a lot of people saying they have used them quite happily but find one post from someone who claims to be a 'technician' who can't tell you how many printers/cameras/phones/whatever he has seen completely destroyed by someone using a non manufacturer replacement. I sometimes think that these are people with a vested interest in selling the ultra high priced replacements and haven't actually seem the death and destruction they claim.

These "technicians" never mention that the price of replacing said printer is more than paid for by the savings buying compatible inks. NB I've never had to replace a printer through using compatible inks.

paddyrg

You can always use a company like jet-tec who offer a warranty that their inks won't kill your printer. The inks are decent enough for every day use as well

cracklepop

I would rather pay more upfront and have realistic running costs, but there is obviously more profit in the reverse.

How much more would you be willing to pay?

To make the printer profitable upfront would require a significant increase in the upfront purchase - we're not talking an extra £20 or so, more like increasing the printer price five fold in many cases.

You then have the situation where you have two similar printers next to each other on a shelf, one costs £30 and one is well over £100 (but has cheaper ink.) I suspect very few people would would pay the extra.

Azari

cracklepop wrote: »

How much more would you be willing to pay?

To make the printer profitable upfront would require a significant increase in the upfront purchase - we're not talking an extra £20 or so, more like increasing the printer price five fold in many cases.

You then have the situation where you have two similar printers next to each other on a shelf, one costs £30 and one is well over £100 (but has cheaper ink.) I suspect very few people would would pay the extra.

This is why all manufacturers use this method of pricing for 'consumer' printers.

The problem is that it's extremely unfair to people who do a lot of printing and an absolute godsend to those who do very little.

It's the same effect that accounts for so many magazines having a cover date two months after the publication date. No publisher will move to (or even maintain) a sensible cover date if it means rivals have what appears to be a more up to date version next to their offering on the shelf.

It's one of the disadvantages of a free market; in certain ancillary aspects competition actually works to the disadvantage of the consumer because it forces everyone to move to match the lowest level if the appears to be the most competitive.

cracklepop

Azari wrote: »

This is why all manufacturers use this method of pricing for 'consumer' printers.

The problem is that it's extremely unfair to people who do a lot of printing and an absolute godsend to those who do very little.

It's the same effect that accounts for so many magazines having a cover date two months after the publication date. No publisher will move to (or even maintain) a sensible cover date if it means rivals have what appears to be a more up to date version next to their offering on the shelf.

It's one of the disadvantages of a free market; in certain ancillary aspects competition actually works to the disadvantage of the consumer because it forces everyone to move to match the lowest level if the appears to be the most competitive.

Don't disagree. My point was simply that consumers have a perception of what a printer should cost. In reality that cost is heavily subsidised by (expected) future ink purchases.

If someone released a bog standard printer for £300 with ink cartridges that cost a couple of quid, I suspect the number or people who'd actually buy it is so limited it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Hoof_Hearted

cracklepop wrote: »

If someone released a bog standard printer for £300 with ink cartridges that cost a couple of quid, I suspect the number or people who'd actually buy it is so limited it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

That's the printer I'm looking for!

Perhaps if everybody threw their printer away when the consumables ran out they would change their minds.

pmduk

People will still need to print and the manufacturers know this.

Azari

pmduk wrote: »

People will still need to print and the manufacturers know this.

Yes, but can you not see that if everyone threw away their printer when it needed now consumables the manufacturers would be forced to abandon the current ridiculous pricing model as they would be losing money hand over fist.

Of course, you don't actually need to throw the printers away, just never buy the manufacturer's replacement consumables.

Bowling_4_Gold

We have 50+ Brother Laser printers on site and we use cheapy-cheap compatibles. Over the past year I have seen only 3 instances of issues with these compatibles- two times with a colour laser where one of the toners was faulty and was covering the paper with specs of toner (no permanent damage) and another time the same happened with a different mono laser.

Pretty good going considering the massive price difference between these and original Brothers. Bear in mind we get through probably 5-10 high capacity toners a week.