That said, since developing a serious interest in photography, I've made the delightful discovery that per-page ink pricing schemes, such as HP's "Instant Ink", can be very effectively leveraged to make photo printing as close to free as it's possible to get, with the incremental cost per print being effectively just that of whatever paper you choose to use.
I've since moved up to a large-format inkjet for most of my prints, not least because I was hard up against the limit of what a general-purpose CMYK system can do, especially when it comes to contrast in monochrome images. But for small-format stuff that isn't quality-critical, the OfficeJet still works fine, and I'm still paying $3 a month for all the ink I can eat.
My color laser printer that I got a few years back is just so much better in every way.
(I do get my prints from Bay Photo when they're too large for my own equipment, which tops out at 13x19". They're super good! I can really recommend them.)
I've never been a college student, but I've been plenty broke a few different times in my life. If anything, the relevance of being flush would seem to be in not having to worry about operating costs. I sure as hell would never have considered buying a photo printer that eats three bucks in ink per print, and God knows how much in cleaning cycles, if I wasn't lucky enough to be flush these days. Sure, I got it cheap with a rebate, but so what? It's the running costs that kill you, if anything does.
For photos specifically, I haven't recently had the chance to compare, but I would not expect any even remotely consumer-attainable laser printer to produce results on par with inkjet. A lot of the reason inkjets have gotten so good over the last decade or so has been trickle-down of tech developed for the professional market, I believe thanks in no small part to the gallery market for "giclée" fine art prints. For color management as well as print quality, I just don't think laser can get there, and even if it did, I'd expect a comparable result to cost an order of magnitude or two more.
Would you care to add some more details? Is this an all-you-can-print deal with a fixed monthly price or something?
In exchange for the subscription, your printer automatically requests replacement ink cartridge sets to be shipped whenever the installed set runs low. That doesn't cost extra, and if there's a rate threshold past which it stops happening, I've never hit it.
Ultimately, this works out, by design, as a terrible deal for printing documents, sold entirely on the idea of convenience. But if you're printing photos, in which every sheet that goes into the printer comes out with ink all over it, the deal turns upside down, because the incremental cost of that ink is zero. And, as a nice side benefit, you get fresh cartridges shipped to your door a little before you need them, without having to think about reordering at all.
Last I checked, MSRP for a full CMYK set of first-party cartridges for an Officejet 8610 is $160. At $3 a month for the "Instant Ink" thing, it takes a little over four years to add up to the same cost as one regular replacement set.
The only true drawback I can see here, for the photo printing use case, is that while a printer is enrolled in Instant Ink, it won't take cartridges not provided through that program. That might be a headache if you want to keep an extra backup set handy, but it's never been a problem for me since I set my printer up with the program some time in 2017. It definitely does prevent using remanufactured, refilled, or third-party carts - but, again, that's never been something I felt the need to do while getting first-party ones for ~free, and I doubt I'll change my mind on that as long as HP keeps playing themselves this way.
(For what it's worth, I thought twice about describing all this in such detail, just in case somebody at HP might notice and care enough to make a change. But what the hell, right? This stuff would take five minutes of BI work to find out, given the data they must certainly have for the program to operate as it does at all. That they leave it as it is tells me they don't care, and why would they? Almost all the program's enrollees are no doubt getting the bad end of the deal, and I'm sure it helps them sell printers, so it's no skin off their nose either way.)
Print heads probably aren't, though. I mean, I was thinking that a $160 MSRP for the four-cart CMYK set from HP seemed absurd, considering that an eight-cart set for my Pixma Pro 100 only runs about a hundred bucks. But then I remembered that that Pixma set is just ink tanks and ink. The print head is a separate part - and it costs $350.
Given the precision manufacturing requirements for a modern inkjet print head, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the economics of the Instant Ink program actually work out as well for HP as they do for me, despite that the way I use the program means I get basically free ink. What I mean by that is, part of the deal I forgot to mention earlier is that you use the packaging from the replacement cartridge set to ship back the cartridges it's replacing - I would not be at all surprised to learn that those carts get refurbished, refilled, and reused, and that the reason it can work so cheaply and no one cares is because (damage and mishandling excepted) it's still saving the manufacturing cost of a new print head.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that if you subtract profit from that $160 MSRP for a fresh set of HP CMYK cartridges, you'd find most of what was left going to pay for the four print heads in those cartridges, not the ink that you'd be running through them.
Does anyone in the "printer ink costs more than gold" discourse ever think about this? I don't recall seeing it mentioned anywhere, and I guess that's fair since it was only thinking about my relatively unusual high-end photo printer that led me to realize it. But I feel like it might be a pretty important point in that whole discussion.
At the end of the day, the printers are expensive enough for HP to turn a profit on them. So it makes perfect sense to flip the razorblade model on its head and earn large margins on the printers while selling the ink at barely above cost. Professionals wouldn't have it any other way, as their margins simply would not sustain the exorbitant prices of consumer off-the-shelf ink. If HP doesn't sell them "basically free" ink, they'll get it from somebody else.
Might still be cheaper than a dot-matrix machine and a box of tractor-feed fanfold would run you in 2020, though.
Never bought an Epson cartridge after that, only counterfeits on eBay.
Then I gave up and would order the el-cheapo amazon refills and change all 7 at once, empty or not.
(one big change every few months instead of random refills every week or so)
I'm sure many people would happily shift from printing all black, to all cyan, then all magenta (yellow probably isn't practical) in an attempt to get maximal utility out of their color cartridge otherwise.
https://sagittal.org/photo/CIS/inkchip/chip.html
...which is why there are lots of aftermarket CIS units for them:
I've seen this on buymeonce which is usually pretty good, but I'm having trouble believing epson would have actually designed this
https://buymeonce.com/products/epson-ecotank-et-2650-all-in-...
Edit: still seems these brick themselves once the ink pad is full. Can't find good data on that so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Can anyone comment on how it compares to a cheap laser printer?
So even if you replace the ink-pads you have to use some kind of illegal software to reset the number of pages printed, so the printer think it's brand new and allow you to print again. This really should be an option, even if it's hidden far down the printing menu.
Which I guess is prone to the usual arms race between the OEM and the pirate, so assuming your printer software is up to date, it's probably hard to reset the page count.
So yeah, still searching to see how much a problem it is, but that's a big no-no for me if true. Particularly for a product that brands itself as being more environment conscious...
My assumption was that they were charging more for the printer and being 'permissive' regarding ink (that is to say, allowing the customer to do what they want with equipment they own).
They look like they're somewhat high maintenance. [0][1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRo0ADOPMSs
[1] https://www.tonergiant.co.uk/blog/2017/03/buy-epson-ecotank-...
https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/429699/Epson+ECO+TANK+%2...
> Epson uses an "inkpad" to clear its printer (jets?) before printing. Eventually the amount of ink deposited in this blotter-type system fills and must be replaced. Unfortunately it seems as if replacing the inkpad is very messy and difficult. Our printer is used so frequently that the inkpad needs to be replaced every six months.
> Epson charges enough to make replacing the entire unit a (sadly) reasonable option.
https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/498327/ink+pad+finished+...
> As suggested in the video after cleaning the waste ink pads you need to reset the counters.
> Go online and search for Epson XP-620 reset waste ink counters to find results for suppliers of the reset software which you can purchase online
Basic business analysis suggests there are very few practical ways in which a newcomer to the market could produce a product with no anti-consumer features that is also realistically profitable.
Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it.
Note I'm not disagreeing that we all want cheap inks without gouging. But I am disagreeing that it's realistic to expect "market forces" to provide this when they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now.
It is just, that probably no one would believe it.
My assumption is that people who print a few pages a week would rather spend more upfront, and less on ink. It's not a technical question, it's a matter of someone making a standard inkjet printer and charging more for it while charging less for ink, and removing restrictions against third-party ink.
> Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it.
Why not? Why wouldn't people buy this if it existed? Why wouldn't a newcomer to the market go this route?
> they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now.
This seems to be true, but I don't understand why. Doesn't it just take one of the printer companies to break away from the pack?
Perhaps I'm overestimating how willing people would be to spend upfront to minimise their long-term ink costs.
There are, they are called industrial printers. The ones used for printing packaging and other very high-volume applications. Relatively low resolution, but ultra high speed and printable area size. They also cost much more than any individual or business not in the printing industry would ever want to pay for a printer. Something like this...
https://www.uscutter.com/Roland-VersaCAMM-VS640i-Wide-Format...
Unless your primary printing activity is printing photos, there's not much reason to buy an inkjet printer these days.
The print quality is quite good, it comes with an insane amount of ink, and you literally buy full replacement bottles of ink and pour them in the tanks.
No artificial page limits, no checks for non-oem ink.