>> ^ant:
But laser is so expensive.


If you can live with monochrome it's not really that expensive compared to inkjet. My Samsung ML-1710 cost me about $120 and came with a starter cartridge good for about 1000 pages. The replacement cartridges are about $75 and good for about 3000 pages. When I had an inkjet I was paying around $60 for ink every 6-8 months and that was even if I hadn't used it that much because the cartridges would clog up or dry out. I bought my last toner cartridge a couple of years ago and it's still going strong.

That is why I dumped my inkjet POS. I went laser. Not like that is a heck of a lot better... who knows how often/expensive its going to be to replace bits such as the fuser and who knows what else.

Planned obsolescence people that is all this is. Many modern gadgets are designed to fail in a relatively short time.. all to get you to 'go buy a new one'.

Now you wonder why landfills are full to the brim?

>> ^HaricotVert:
It's simple corporate greed at work here. Printers in and of themselves are not costly to produce, and (for the most part) are rather stable peripherals that one can easily get their full value's worth over a couple years. You can observe this yourself by walking into the nearest electronics store and picking up a decent Inkjet printer for under $100.
The problem is, giving consumers a $100 product that may very well outlast the computer they hook it up to is not a wise business decision... not wise at all.
The only way companies that manufacture printers can expect to see sizable profit margins off of the printers themselves is through selling ink cartridges just as this video describes - an eyedropper full of colored water for $40.
Is it efficient? Absolutely not. Is it fair to the consumers? Absolutely not. Is it incredibly wasteful? Hell yes. Does it make huge profit margins? ABSOLUTELY.
That's really the only rhyme or reason for it. Any one of these major printer companies could make a high-capacity, high-efficiency Inkjet printer with accompanying affordable cartridges - except it wouldn't make any money.


You know what? I sense a cartel/conspiracy.

You need one "eco-minded" rebel to make a high efficiency machine. They would instantly steal SO MUCH of the market share that they would destroy all the other companies in one fell swoop.

Of course, they probably have their goons ready to destroy anybody who tries to lift a finger in this direction.

Still, a huge profit-making scheme for someone with environmental zeal and a ballsy attitude towards life, I figure.

This video didn't even mention that the ink cartridges are designed to dry out if you don't use them for a while. I don't print much, maybe 3 things a month, but when I had an inkjet printer I still had to buy an ink cartridge every 3 months no matter how many pages I printed. My inkjet would do color, but I only printed black and white. A B&W cartridge for my printer cost $35.

I finally tossed it and bought a laser printer. The toner cartridge for it costs about $60, but so far I've gone 2 years on one.

It's simple corporate greed at work here. Printers in and of themselves are not costly to produce, and (for the most part) are rather stable peripherals that one can easily get their full value's worth over a couple years. You can observe this yourself by walking into the nearest electronics store and picking up a decent Inkjet printer for under $100.

The problem is, giving consumers a $100 product that may very well outlast the computer they hook it up to is not a wise business decision... not wise at all.

The only way companies that manufacture printers can expect to see sizable profit margins off of the printers themselves is through selling ink cartridges just as this video describes - an eyedropper full of colored water for $40.

Is it efficient? Absolutely not. Is it fair to the consumers? Absolutely not. Is it incredibly wasteful? Hell yes. Does it make huge profit margins? ABSOLUTELY.

That's really the only rhyme or reason for it. Any one of these major printer companies could make a high-capacity, high-efficiency Inkjet printer with accompanying affordable cartridges - except it wouldn't make any money.

The theory's been around since 1987 when electroluminescent organic compounds were discovered at Kodak and we've had 3 color compounds for about 10 years now. The lifetimes were an issue 5 years ago but still even then practically no one made and sold anything w/them. The cost to mass produce them is REALLY cheap too because the compounds can be soluble in common organic solvents. You can put them in an inkjet and just print out displays onto plastic! This too has been done for 6-7 years. I just don't know why they don't sell something made of this, even if the lifetimes are still short who cares if you can churn out rolls of the stuff for pennies.

big girl! Perhaps madam would prefer an E size inkjet?