Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper - Printable Version

-Shoutbox (
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper (/showthread.php?tid=95543)

Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper by Exca on 10-03-2010 at 10:39 AM

Hellow Plussers,

I've been buying a Dell 1320CN laserprinter, which is a color laserprinter able to work on a network.

I payed 160 which is about 220.656 USD.
In the box:

- the printer itself
- Black toner (2000pages)
- Cyan toner (1000pages)
- Magenta toner (1000pages)
- Yellow toner (1000pages)

=> Which means in a very childish way of thinking that you get 5000 pages out of it. They are not marked as startertoners, they are fully filled. These numbers are written in the manual as the toners you get in the box, and the printer tells me 100% on each cartridge.

Now if I go to the website of dell itself, and i search supplies, i can order exactly the same toners with the same capacity and that would cost me 264.99 or 365.448 USD.

Thus: replacing the toner is 40% more expensive than just buying a new printer with the same toner already included, getting a newer device without dust and cycles.

You must also consider that after 20.000 pages you have to replace the PHD which costs another 100 or 137,9USD. So it really makes the difference.


Why is that? Do they get more profit out of the printers than the toners?

I don't think they plan to get their profit out of the supplies because everyone can see that a new device is much cheaper, you must be a fool to buy these replacement toners.

This is the answer I have in mind but I could be totally wrong:

If you look at the size of the printer and it's capabilities, you can see that the device is not a high-end business model. Company's (who use much toner) don't buy these cheap laserprinters because they are simply not expensive enough (no fax, no copy, no auto duplex, etc...)

So if you think about it, these cheap devices are only bought by particular consumers which actually don't print that much. After 5000 pages, after a couple of years, it's rare that people in this society will buy replacement toner. Do they really WANT us to buy a new printer?

On the more expensive business models it is offcourse cheaper to buy replacement toner. On most inkprinters, it's still cheaper to buy replacement ink and replace the printer only after a couple of refills.

But the difference, particulary on this model and the cheaper Samsung color laserprinters, is huge!


But what a waste! I feel actually bad about this. What if i print this toner in the first 6 months, then I have a perfectly working device that I will throw away to replace it by exactly the same model. What kind of a world is this?


I must notice that there is cheaper non-dell toner (which they claim would be the same quality):

Black: 2250 pages
Cyan: 2250 pages
Yellow: 2250 pages
Magenta: 2250 pages

which is 9000 pages in the childish way of thinking for 160 or 220USD which would actually be cheaper than to buy a new printer.

what are your thoughts about this?

RE: Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper by CookieRevised on 10-03-2010 at 02:48 PM

My thoughts are exact the same as yours and as so many others.

You are completely right that they aim at selling consumer model printers and get their profit from there, not from the supplies which are relativly speaking rarely sold.

It's true that the average consumer doesn't print that much, and their printer will be broken or become obsolete*, before they run out of toner.

* eg: consumer buys a new PC and these days they often come with a printer as a kind of promotion.

It is indeed different with professional printers, for the same reasons: businesses print quite a lot in a short time, and as such need more replacement toners before the printer actually brakes down or whatever.

It's all a question of supply and demand I guess; demand for consumer model printers is high so the price drops. Demand for consumer model toners is very low, so they are expensive.

There is probably also a packaging factor into play, among other things. Packing and shipping one thing is relativly more expensive than packing and shipping the goods inside the box of a bigger thing. And packaging in general is very expensive.


As for white branded inkt and toner: they usually are of lower quality though.  Sometimes they are produceed independantly of the big brands, sometimes they are the leftovers or B-line products which didn't pass the quality test of the big brands. But the average consumer wouldn't notice this (because sometimes the difference is minimal, even a pro sometimes doesn't see a difference).

But always buy it at your own risk. eg: it might be that the inkt is slightly thicker or thinner than what the printer is designed for, with all the troubles it could bring. Or it could be that the white branded inkt doesn't dry as fast. Or that there are some more contaminations in the toner powder. Or that, over a longer period of time, the inkt/toner looses color faster under the influence of UV light (eg: daylight), etc, etc...

All stuff which is hardly noticable and usually it wont do any damage or whatever. But there is always that small chance it does give you problems though. And using white branded products sometimes also brakes the warranty.

RE: Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper by lizard.boy on 10-03-2010 at 04:28 PM

My family hasn't run OEM ink or toner in a printer for the last 5 years or so. The price of the name brand ink and toners is ridiculous. We run canon and brother printers and multifunctions that do not require chipped ink cartridges or toners.

For example, The printer my girlfriend is using right now is a Brother MFC-240C, (highly recommended by me BTW.) If were were to buy the ink cartridges at Staples, it would cost approximately $87 not counting taxes or shipping. For us to buy off brands from our favorite supplier, it only costs about $18, and we buy enough at one time to qualify for free shipping.

We don't print photos, but the ink is great for what we do with it.
Considering we paid $100 for the printer (on sale). Paying $87 for 4 cartridges is hard to swallow.

RE: Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper by Nagamasa on 10-03-2010 at 05:49 PM

I haven't bought ink/toner since the days of single black/colour ink (Pentium III days)...

Replacing the ink costs more than a printer...why not just buy myself a new printer and make myself happy?

I mean, my Brother B&W laser lasted me six years, and I just bought a B&W Brother laser to take over because the old one was low on toner. xD

Yes, as for companies, those printers are much larger/better, thus more expensive. It simply wouldn't make sense to replace a printer that's fully working for toner, which would probably be cheaper.

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It's true that the average consumer doesn't print that much, and their printer will be broken or become obsolete*, before they run out of toner.
Really? In my entire life of probably 6+ printers, none of them broke ._. It was always that I ran out of ink :P
RE: Replacement toner? New printer + same toner = cheaper by CookieRevised on 10-03-2010 at 05:56 PM

But then again you aren't an average consumer, but a powerrrrr userrrrr :D
The fact that you're here and talk about this stuff shows that already I think :).

The average PC user is barely PC literate and uses his/her PC just for checking email and maybe twittering and doing their taxes every year, so to speak. You know... like mom and dad... aka the kind of people who ask you where the 'any' key is when they see 'press any key' for example :p