Printer ink pricier than champagne finds Which?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1627051676033.png


A study by consumer watchdog Which? has found that branded printer ink remains "staggeringly" more expensive than third-party alternatives.

A pint of ink could cost up to £1,300, making it pricier that some champagnes, its survey found.

Non-branded ink cartridges perform as well or better than their branded alternatives, it suggested.

Manufacturers are suggesting customers do not use third-party ink, with some even blocking them from doing so.

Home printers have become an essential piece of kit in homes over the pandemic, crucial for both home-working and home-schooling.

The watchdog surveyed 10,000 consumers who own inkjet printers, half of whom said they used their printer at least once a week,

It has done similar surveys in the past, and this year concluded that "staggering cost differences" still remain between own-brand and third-party ink suppliers.

Its findings include:
  • Ink bought from the manufacturer could be up to 286% more expensive.
  • A multipack of colour ink for the Epson WorkForce WF-7210DTW printer cost £75.49 (or £1,369 per pint)
  • A multipack of ink for the Brother MFCJ5730DW cost £98.39
  • Cartridges for a Canon Pixma MX475 cost £80.98
  • Ink bought from the manufacturer could be up to 286% more expensive than third-party ink, it suggests
  • Cheaper alternatives can be as cheap as £12.95, saving thousands over a five-year period
It also found that 28 HP printers now use a system called "dynamic security" which recognises cartridges which use non-HP chips, and stops them from working.

Other manufacturers promote 'approved', 'original' or 'guaranteed' cartridges on their websites and in instruction manuals.

It has left consumers confused, said Which?. 56% said that they would only use branded ink, with 39% avoiding third-party ink over fears that they would not work in their printer.

But at the same time people gave similar print quality ratings for original and third-party inks, with 16 non-branded inks coming out ahead of Brother, Canon, Epson and HP.

'Genuine' ink

Adam French, Which? consumer rights expert, said: "Printer ink shouldn't cost more than a bottle of high-end champagne or Chanel No 5.

"We've found that there are lots of third-party products that are outperforming their branded counterparts at a fraction of the cost."

He added that deciding which ink to put in a printer should be "a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer".

In response, HP said that customers had the option to use HP Instant Ink, a subscription service which it claimed can save customers up to 70%.

"HP offers customers the flexibility to use Original HP cartridges or third-party cartridges that retain the original HP chip or circuitry," it said.

Epson also highlights its EcoTank printer models which it said come with enough ink to print for up to three years, with replacement bottles costing £7.99.

"As non-genuine inks are not designed or tested by Epson, we cannot guarantee these inks will not damage the printer," it added.

Brother said that its own brand inks were of a "higher quality" but that customers had the choice of whether to use them or non-branded alternatives.

And Canon said that while third-party inks can work with its printers, "the technology inside is designed to function correctly with our genuine inks".

www.bbc.co.uk

Printer ink pricier than champagne finds Which?

According to a Which survey a pint of printer ink could cost up to £1,300.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Click to expand...
What kind of a stupid comparison is that? It would take most people years to use up the same volume of printer ink as an adult drinks champagne in a single evening. Fucking journalists.
 
TopCat said:
could cost up to
Click to expand...
Weasel words go right in the trash. Tell us the average, not the outlier.

No doubt the boomers this outrage bait is designed for will still get mad, but I hope anyone under the age of 60 could instantly recognize this as a bunch of meaningless non-data presented in a way designed to make you mad about nothing.
 
I thought it was common knowledge that massive markups on ink are where companies like Ricoh, HP, Canon, and so on make all their money when it comes to printers.
 
Firstly, who still uses inkjets when laser printers are down to $50.

Secondly, as the manufacturers say in this article, toner/ink is much cheaper if you have a support contract like businesses do. The whole "ink is expensive" meme is from home users who barely use their printer. It's not really a "razor and blades" model like people think. Home users are not the intended market for printers, have you ever heard of a home sending their empty cartridges back for recycling and a discount?

The problem with third party ink/toner is that they get the printer dirtier quicker so it needs cleaning more often. If you barely use your printer you won't notice but an office printer can be messed up within a few months. If you're say a graphic designer doing test prints before sending off to the real printer it's not worth the hassle of fucking up your printer by buying cheaper cartridges. If you have a service contract you can request HP etc to come and clean your printer every 1 or 2 years which is another thing home users never pay for and then they complain that their printer is fucked up after a few years of being treated like shit and never serviced.
 
I thought I was having a stroke when I read this title. But yeah pretty much all there is to be said about printer ink cartridges has already been said here. I haven't had a working printer at home for years because there's just so many places I'd have access to one for free/a very small fee. Only problem is that I can't print out doujin pages at these places *sigh*
 
From The Uncanny Valley said:
Who the fuck still drinks champagne?
Click to expand...
A friend was given a case of '96 Dom Perignon. I was happy to drink it. The '92 and 93' aren't nearly as good, so stick with the '96. You'll pay a bit more, but worth it.

I wish my customers would give me $3k+ gifts. I'm in the wrong industry.
 
Somchai said:
What kind of a stupid comparison is that? It would take most people years to use up the same volume of printer ink as an adult drinks champagne in a single evening. Fucking journalists.
Click to expand...
I think it feels terrible as a consumer that I could buy a new printer with free included ink for only slightly more than the cost of the ink cartridge refill. Ink feels way too costly versus complex mechanical and electronic parts.

I think people probably approach the concept from the model of a lawnmower and gasoline; most people are okay with paying maybe $200 for a nice mower for a basic suburban front & backyard, and having $20 in gas last 8 months of the year. Ink obviously doesn't perform the same way in a printer as gas in a mower, but people have never been smart with their comparisons.
 
Irrelevant said:
Firstly, who still uses inkjets when laser printers are down to $50.

Secondly, as the manufacturers say in this article, toner/ink is much cheaper if you have a support contract like businesses do. The whole "ink is expensive" meme is from home users who barely use their printer. It's not really a "razor and blades" model like people think. Home users are not the intended market for printers, have you ever heard of a home sending their empty cartridges back for recycling and a discount?

The problem with third party ink/toner is that they get the printer dirtier quicker so it needs cleaning more often. If you barely use your printer you won't notice but an office printer can be messed up within a few months. If you're say a graphic designer doing test prints before sending off to the real printer it's not worth the hassle of fucking up your printer by buying cheaper cartridges. If you have a service contract you can request HP etc to come and clean your printer every 1 or 2 years which is another thing home users never pay for and then they complain that their printer is fucked up after a few years of being treated like shit and never serviced.
Click to expand...
Laser printers can't do color, and as someone said above, you're best off just buying a fresh printer that hasn't been gunked up instead of buying fresh ink cartridges. To call that shit extortionate is an understatement, and the ink DRM is almost as bad as Keurig's coffee DRM. And if you're working from home and need to constantly print out work e=mails, some of which will inevitably need to be in color thanks to middle management being assholes, shit adds up fast, both the grime and the ink.
 
Long Tongue Silver said:
There are plenty on the market that can, just not as good as inkjets.
Click to expand...

Truth. I have a Samsung Laser Printer that does color. I also buy third party cartridges. Laser Printer Carts last FOREVER. Inkjet I've had nothing but catastrophic fucking nightmares with, either replacing printers every two years or cartridges every two months. Buy third party carts, know how to clean your printer. Or pay a lot for a high quality color laser printer. I don't have a high quality one because I'm not printing photos (I just need color), but it gets the job done. I must have printed 1k+ pages without needing to replace my carts, though they are pretty low right now. Still, I get huge mileage out of them.
 
Somchai said:
What kind of a stupid comparison is that? It would take most people years to use up the same volume of printer ink as an adult drinks champagne in a single evening. Fucking journalists.
Click to expand...
There's bottled water more expensive than cheap champagne so I look forward to the next article about that.

Which? usually aren't retarded, I guess the diversity hires are in and the rot has started, same with every other institution that was worth a damn in the past.
 
HymanHive said:
This has been happening for decades. In most cases, it's cheaper to buy a new printer than buy a cartridge.
Click to expand...
It's usually been a fifty-fifty chance that when I've realized I was out of ink and needed it like, now, I run out to walmartarget and it ends up there's some printer on clearance
 
Secret Asshole said:
Truth. I have a Samsung Laser Printer that does color. I also buy third party cartridges. Laser Printer Carts last FOREVER. Inkjet I've had nothing but catastrophic fucking nightmares with, either replacing printers every two years or cartridges every two months. Buy third party carts, know how to clean your printer. Or pay a lot for a high quality color laser printer. I don't have a high quality one because I'm not printing photos (I just need color), but it gets the job done. I must have printed 1k+ pages without needing to replace my carts, though they are pretty low right now. Still, I get huge mileage out of them.
Click to expand...

All of this, except mine doesn't do colour as I don't need it. Ten years on, the most trouble I've had is the very, very occasional & easy enough to fix paper jam. Still works great, prints super fast, and the toner lasts forever.

Whereas every single inkjet I have used has eventually (or immediately in many cases) had major or frequent issues, and it's often so frustrating to fix them. Extortionate ink costs & DRM are just the cherries on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom