Printer ink,rip off?

[historian]

Did anyone read the piece in the Daily Mail for the 20th re printer ink?
It`s head line reads: Printer ink pricier than Champagne.
It then goes on to tell about the cost of black ink per millilitre @ 51p against the same amount of Champagne @15p,a 250% difference. And on average a replacment set of ink cartridges for a home printer costs £45 much less than a bottle of Dom Perignon or a bottle of old Tawny vintage port at £125. But drop for drop the ink is much more expensive.
This came from a "Which" survey They suveyed HP,Canon and Epson. HP refused to comment,Canon said the system is needed "to provide the print quality users expect" Epson commented rather cryptically said "there are many factors that influence the yield of an ink cartridge"


I know that ink is expensive, but worked out like the above it is,in my opinion, a right old rip off. So all those cheap printer offers now make sense,it`s the vast profits on ink that fuels these companies. Another thought....I wonder if they pay their tax here in the U.K??
Anny comments.
historian

 

[muckshifter]

Welcome to the real world, take a seat, an advisor will be with you shortly to help you settle in.



I'm sorry, but what part about company profit don't you understand?

 

[Ian]

Tbh, I don't think it's much of a surprise when people buy £20 printers. It's just a clever ploy so that the money is made on cartridges - however refills are so much cheaper and can sometimes be decent.

I've not used an inkjet for a long time, so I can't comment too much on it. However, I bought a colour laser printer many years ago (perhaps 7) for about £150 and then another set of toners for about £80. That's seen me print thousands of pages at high quality (especially at University), so it's been very economical .

 

[historian]

Tbh, I don't think it's much of a surprise when people buy £20 printers. It's just a clever ploy so that the money is made on cartridges - however refills are so much cheaper and can sometimes be decent.

I've not used an inkjet for a long time, so I can't comment too much on it. However, I bought a colour laser printer many years ago (perhaps 7) for about £150 and then another set of toners for about £80. That's seen me print thousands of pages at high quality (especially at University), so it's been very economical .

I have tried using refills,they ruined my printers head. I think the comment"....can sometimes be decent" says it all really.
historian

 

[nivrip]

I raised a similar point some time ago as to whether it's more economical to buy a very cheap printer and throw it away when the ink runs out.

My daughter go an Epsom for £35 only to find that the full set of Epson replacement cartridges cost £32.

She now gets refills from a company called Inkraider who do the full set of non-Epson cartridges for about £7 and they haven't ruined the printer so far even after several replacements.

 

[Anon_F]

Yes but Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger does taste better than Ink.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Yes but Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger does taste better than Ink.

A very pertinent point sir

Printer inks have always been a rip-off, nowt new there.

Perhaps I may do a rethink on typewriter ownership, I dare say ribbons are more economical than ink carts.

On a similar note, Razors don't cost much but the replacement blades require a mortgage.

I've had mixed results with refills, some good, some not so good. Topping up cartridges myself with a hypodermic and bottles of ink has always been a disaster (tried it twice) but the price disparity between refills and manufacturers cartridges is so great it's always worth a try.

The outlay for a good laser printer is comparitively large compared to inkjets but in my experience they pay for themselves eventually.

 

[bootneck02]

Strange that troubled Kodak is stopping producing printers but supplying the ink why? because that is where the profit is and not that they feel sorry for the customer that has bought their printer