[ndsipa_pomu]

That link is about ink in the MFC models and is a good reason to not buy Brother inkjets if they're going to do that.

However, I've not had any issue with third party toner in my Brother DCP colour laser printer and haven't heard of any such issues.

[jkaplowitz]

It’s about toner in a Brother MFC laser printer (these do exist - I’ve owned one too), not ink in a Brother MFC inkjet.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Ah, I see. I got thrown by the use of "ink" in the reddit post.

[mindslight]

The problem is the modern incarnation of the company intentionally destroying their customers' products after a purchase, so explaining it away as only one product line isn't really applicable. The problem is any trusting of that company going forward, by buying any new products of theirs.

My printer is an HP DeskJet 1220C, which first came out in 2000 (it's got USB and parallel ports). I like it because the "ink cartridges" include the print heads, meaning they're easy to replace if they start getting clogged [0]. But that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend HP as a brand to anyone, given the shenanigans of their newer printers.

[0] As what happened to my previous-to-me but newer-model Photosmart 6520. Cleaned them out good with alcohol, got it working again, then it clogged up again in short order. Figuring out the actual problem there has been a bit beyond me.

[criddell]

It seems like printer companies are overcharging for ink but they probably aren't. None of the printer companies are generating huge profits.

I believe people are probably buying the wrong printer. If they print a lot, they should be buying an ink-tank printer. The printers cost a little more, but the consumables are very inexpensive.

If they are infrequent printers, they should buy whatever cheap printer they want and then sign up for that companies ink subscription. You mentioned HP and they probably have the best ink subscription program. For light use it's $1.49 / month which is going to be enough for a lot of people. It's nice to never have to order ink.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I think the benefits of laser printers are more relevant for infrequent printing. You can leave a laser printer unused for months and it'll just print perfectly - ink jet printers will often have issues if you leave them unused. Also the toner cartridges will last for years.

[criddell]

If you aren't printing photos, a laser printer is probably the best choice.

[ahartmetz]

If you are printing photos, drug stores have dye sublimation (AFAIK) printers that print much better quality than any inkjet print I've ever seen.

[mindslight]

> If they are infrequent printers, they should buy whatever cheap printer they want and then sign up for that companies ink subscription

erm, do any of these subscription services work without having to subject yourself to surveillance of everything you print? I can't imagine the companies are just content to take your word for the amount you've printed or when you need more ink. Off the cuff, I would guess most will force you to even compromise your personal computer itself by installing some proprietary malware.

FWIW the HP official black cartridge for the 1220C is ~$70, whereas generics are under $20. I'm sure the generics cut corners a little bit, but not $50 worth of corners. HP is most certainly overcharging for ink.

But the general failure pattern in our society isn't massive profits going to company owners, but rather ever growing management and administrative layers taking the surplus as their own salaries.

[criddell]

> I would guess most will force you to…

They don’t. These days most people are printing pages from their phone and printer companies don’t get deep access to iOS and Android like they do with Linux and Windows.

The printer counts the pages and sends the page count and ink levels to the mother ship and ink just shows up exactly when you need it.

> massive profits

These companies don’t have rivers of cash flowing into them. Selling and supporting printers and ink isn’t a great business. The software and hardware is expensive and hard to make. The ink is the only thing with a good margin on it and people just don’t use all that much of it.

Lots of businesses operate like this so I’m not sure why people are so upset at printer companies. When I buy a game for my PS5, I get about $2 worth of plastic and cardboard and they charge me $60 or more. Obviously it costs money to make the game and they spread that over all the copies. Well, same goes for printers and their consumables.

If you want cheap ink, buy a printer with cheap ink. They are out there and they are great. If you want to spend as little as possible on a printer, that’s out there too. You just pay more down the line for consumables.

[mindslight]

> The printer counts the pages and sends the page count and ink levels to the mother ship and ink just shows up exactly when you need it.

So is the printer running secure (ie libre) firmware so I can know it's not also backhauling the content of what is printed for some imagined "legitimate" business purpose? Or are you saying that I am just supposed to trust the printer manufacturer based on their marketing? If I am supposed to be content just trusting them with the content of what I print, then I might as well dispense with "owning" a device that requires (space, supplies, maintenance) and just pick up prints at Staples.

> Lots of businesses operate like this so I’m not sure why people are so upset at printer companies. When I buy a game for my PS5, I get about $2 worth of plastic and cardboard and they charge me $60 or more

Because it's straight up anti-competitive bundling that would be taken to task if there were any semblance of anti-trust enforcement. Printers and ink for printers should be separate markets. A manufacturer should not be able to abuse their market share of printers in order to make people buy ink from them as well.

People are also most certainly concerned with proprietary locked down platforms (eg PS5, iDevices, web services). The topic of printers is just especially galling because it was an industry that got along just fine before using technological and legal restrictions to kill competition. Newer markets have been locked down from their creation, so people have a harder time imagining better. That anti-competitive arrangements have been allowed to fester across our society is a major problem, not some kind of perverse validation.

(Your example of game pricing also drags in the deliberate monopoly of copyright, but I addressed the substance of the anticompetitive bundling/subsidizing consoles with games)

[mrlongroots]

It's surprising that Chinese companies have not stepped into fill the printer gap. For most places where American companies stagnated, Asian ones (cars, renewables, sub-$500 smartphones) came in and ate their lunch.