What are your thoughts about HP Instant Ink?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
... But let's just say that you want to recycle anyway, you just add it to your pile of normal recycling waste. We deal with that weekly or monthly anyway. ...
I can't add something like a printer to my weekly recycle pickup, I have to either take it to a recycle place, or in my personal case I can bring it to work and add it to our recycle pile in the office and they take care of it.
Another push back is that most places charge to recycle types types of things, anywhere from $5 for a device to $0.25/lb for a pile.
If you live in a more populated area then I do you would be surprised at the number of electronics re-claimers who take things on donation. There are three around our NC office.
-
@Dashrender said:
Which makes ink even less desirable. Unless things have changed in the last few years, I always run into the problem where my ink cartridge dries out, or the jets get gummed up, etc due to lack of printing. This is what makes lasers nice for me.
I haven't bought anything but a laser for main printing since 2001.
If ink dries out, that makes third party ink even that much more important as it lowers the chance of a jam per dollar spent.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I may not have read the whole thread but how much are you guys printing at home in order to save $600 by buying third party ink? That sounds like a massive amount of printing. I barely print anything.
It's $600 / per destroyed printer. Could be weekly, could be a lifetime. The $600 is the savings you get, very roughly, by using third party ink over whatever average period it takes to have a printer destroyed by the ink.
-
I think the savings of $600 per destroyed printer could be a lot lower if you're one of those rarely print guys and the ink dries out. Now you could have a destroyed printer on the original included ink cartridge, or perhaps the second one. But the point still stands that using third party ink on for the second cartridge would still save you money.
-
@Dashrender said:
I think the savings of $600 per destroyed printer could be a lot lower if you're one of those rarely print guys and the ink dries out. Now you could have a destroyed printer on the original included ink cartridge, or perhaps the second one. But the point still stands that using third party ink on for the second cartridge would still save you money.
If the issue is ink drying out and ruining the printer then you have the risk with either type of cartridge and that doesn't really count. That's a different problem. So you might raise your overall cost of printing, but the calculation between which is better, OEM or third party, remains the same.
-
@Dashrender said:
I think the savings of $600 per destroyed printer could be a lot lower if you're one of those rarely print guys and the ink dries out. Now you could have a destroyed printer on the original included ink cartridge, or perhaps the second one. But the point still stands that using third party ink on for the second cartridge would still save you money.
3rd party cartridges also raise your cost per page though. You spend less on the ink, but you get much lower yield as a rule. Also, if you're doing general document printing, sure, 3rd party ink works. However, if you're doing anything that needs to be quality, such as photos, you NEVER buy 3rd party. Always OEM. I don't deny the cost savings can be huge, but many 3rd party cartridges don't work every time, they don't last as long, and quality is always lower. It's not just how much you're printing, but what you're printing.
-
@thanksaj said:
However, if you're doing anything that needs to be quality, such as photos, you NEVER buy 3rd party. Always OEM. I don't deny the cost savings can be huge, but many 3rd party cartridges don't work every time, they don't last as long, and quality is always lower. It's not just how much you're printing, but what you're printing.
How can printing images at home compare to sending it to Walgreen or something?
-
@JaredBusch said:
How can printing images at home compare to sending it to Walgreen or something?
There was a time when printing images at home often made sense but mostly today I agree, if you really want to print photos you normally use a service.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
How can printing images at home compare to sending it to Walgreen or something?
There was a time when printing images at home often made sense but mostly today I agree, if you really want to print photos you normally use a service.
Depends on what you're printing. For 4x6 and 5x7, MUCH cheaper to send them out. However, you doing something like A3+, or 13x19 like I used to do, and it's cheaper to do them home...
-
Then again, most people don't print that size...or have the equipment to print that size...however, ask @NetworkNerdWifey about printing that size...it's addicting..
-
@thanksaj said:
Depends on what you're printing. For 4x6 and 5x7, MUCH cheaper to send them out. However, you doing something like A3+, or 13x19 like I used to do, and it's cheaper to do them home...
Really? But then you need really expensive printers, right?
-
@dominica used to support Fuji printers used commercially.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Depends on what you're printing. For 4x6 and 5x7, MUCH cheaper to send them out. However, you doing something like A3+, or 13x19 like I used to do, and it's cheaper to do them home...
Really? But then you need really expensive printers, right?
Generally. The cheapest printer I've ever seen that does A3+ is between $200 and 300. A good one is $500+. That's full retail of course...
-
@thanksaj said:
Generally. The cheapest printer I've ever seen that does A3+ is between $200 and 300. A good one is $500+. That's full retail of course...
General business and home use does not print anything other than Letter or Legal (US sizing). So right off the bat here you are discussing a non-standard fringe case. That is an exception unto itself and is by no means what you should use to make general printer/ink decisions.
You are using very flawed logic to support your arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#mediaviewer/File:A_size_illustration2_with_letter_and_legal.svg -
@JaredBusch said:
@thanksaj said:
Generally. The cheapest printer I've ever seen that does A3+ is between $200 and 300. A good one is $500+. That's full retail of course...
General business and home use does not print anything other than Letter or Legal (US sizing). So right off the bat here you are discussing a non-standard fringe case. That is an exception unto itself and is by no means what you should use to make general printer/ink decisions.
You are using very flawed logic to support your arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#mediaviewer/File:A_size_illustration2_with_letter_and_legal.svgI never claimed the average user is printing A3+...
@thanksaj said:
Then again, most people don't print that size...or have the equipment to print that size...however, ask @NetworkNerdWifey about printing that size...it's addicting..
See??
-
But do you still support the purchasing of OEM only ink for normal home users considering the current paradigm?
-
@Dashrender said:
But do you still support the purchasing of OEM only ink for normal home users considering the current paradigm?
For the average home user, I won't deny that third-party is cheaper and can reflect serious cost savings. Personally, I'd still buy OEM. I've seen too many issues from 3rd party cartridges in my time in retail. It's a decision each person much make but I'd still buy OEM. But that's me.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
But do you still support the purchasing of OEM only ink for normal home users considering the current paradigm?
For the average home user, I won't deny that third-party is cheaper and can reflect serious cost savings. Personally, I'd still buy OEM. I've seen too many issues from 3rd party cartridges in my time in retail. It's a decision each person much make but I'd still buy OEM. But that's me.
I can understand one's desire to stick by what they've seen, but when you can clearly see a substantial savings... but at least we're all on the same page now, I think
-
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
But do you still support the purchasing of OEM only ink for normal home users considering the current paradigm?
For the average home user, I won't deny that third-party is cheaper and can reflect serious cost savings. Personally, I'd still buy OEM. I've seen too many issues from 3rd party cartridges in my time in retail. It's a decision each person much make but I'd still buy OEM. But that's me.
I can understand one's desire to stick by what they've seen, but when you can clearly see a substantial savings... but at least we're all on the same page now, I think
I won't deny that if you have 1 bad batch of ink that ruins a printer and it happens to be after 9 good batches that saved you a ton of money, that's fine. But what if that bad batch is on the first or second round? It can happen. OEM will always work. Is it possible to get a leaky cartridge or something with an OEM? Yes. But it's FAR more rare than remans or 3rd party cartridges. Most 3rd party cartridges are remans anyways, which is also why I won't use them.
For basic documents, etc, it's fine. But never use 3rd party in a photo printer being used for photos, or anything high quality...
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
But do you still support the purchasing of OEM only ink for normal home users considering the current paradigm?
For basic documents, etc, it's fine. But never use 3rd party in a photo printer being used for photos, or anything high quality...
Why do they use cheaper ink?
