• AccidentalLemming@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It has a significantly higher upfront cost though. So not that interesting for low volumes.

    That’s probably what they’re probably counting on to keep the ink business alive.

    • sygnius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      A laser printer is actually better for low volume printing. With ink cartridges, they dry up if you don’t use them within a year and will need to be replaced.

      I’ve had my laser printer for about 12 years now, and only replaced the drum once since I print so little. Also, I have a Brother printer, which was roughly around $50 at the time.

        • luckystarr@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just block them from accessing the internet. They tend to auto-update their firmware and then some 3rd party cartridges will suddenly stop working.

    • ccunix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can get a little Brother laser with network and duplexing for the same price as a cheap inkjet. It will be much cheaper to run and the ink never dries out. We do that and have an HP Envy with the Instant Ink free tier (10 pages per month with no rollover).