cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1962740
also from r/StallmanWasRight
// removed invalid link
Meanwhile, I’m laughing all the way to the bank with my Brother color laser.
Yes, the printer didn’t have a low subsidized price up front. But now I can enjoy big toner cartridges that seem to last forever. And I can use all the knockoff ones I want. And the printer itself is bulletproof.
Huge fan of Brother!
Yeah, me too! I have a Brother laser printer that’s been sailing along now for 10 years. Recycled toner cartridges work on it and cost me very little money. I can also use recycled drums when I have to replace the drum. I don’t like my real brother very much, but my Brother laser printer is the bomb.
Yes, the printer didn’t have a low subsidized price up front.
This is brought up in every thread about printers by vigilant Brother customers roaming the internet spreading the gospel. Is there is actually any proof that HP prices are subsidized? What’s to stop them from having regular margins AND subscriptions (like everyone does these days) while Brother gets away with inflated margins claiming that others are selling below cost? This way both HP and Brother win.
I don’t like HP either but I find ot a bit suspicious how every time Brother is mentioned its always with the remark about how their prices are totally ok.
I don’t own a printer but to me does it really matter which way it’s going?
HP printer: $50 Brother printer: $150 HP ink: $40 Brother ink: $20
If the brother is cheaper to run daily. Then eventually assuming the same lifespan for both the brother will be cheaper in the end.
I made up random number for my point I have no idea how much any of this actually costs so I could be way off base.
You may have made up the numbers, but I have actually seen HP inkjets for 50€. I do not believe it is physically possible to produce and distribute them at that price without taking a loss - don’t forget that that price includes the seller and every middleman’s profit margin.
