As much as people extoll the virtues of Brother printers, they should know that there are people that do more than print B/W documents.
Brother is far behind the competition from Epson and Canon when it comes to prosumer color inkjet/inktank printing, as I discovered to my cost. I'm referring to SMB printers in the $400-$1000 range, not the $80 consumer injkets that crap out after 50 pages.
Brother colour printers top out at 4 inks (CMYK), which will make most images look washed out, greens resembling blue, etc.
Yes they are economical with the ink use, but the difference between a Brother and an Epson/Canon (which support 6 inks) for colour is night and day. You'll get way better quality color printing at Staples printing from a rental workstation .
That isn't to say I support this ridiculous model of subscriptions. It's just to say that "Buy Brother" isn't the answer for everybody.
> Brother is far behind the competition when it comes to color inkjet/inktank printing
Because inkjet printing for consumers generally sucks. It's just an awful technology for consumers who may go days/weeks/months between needing to print something. I tell any non-tech friends that I can to avoid inkjet printers like the plague - they always have a tendency to break down and be non functional at the moment you need them the most.
I don’t think that analogy works because my circular saw will sit on the shelf unused for years and still work perfectly when I need it. Ink dries out on a much faster scale.
When I need to print in color, which is rare - I just go to my library. They offer free printing credits, and if I need to go over, I'm happy to support them.
For folks who want to do "prosumer" level color print, I recently bought an Epson EcoTank Photo ET-8550 and am very happy with the prints. In addition to high-quality CMYK inks, it adds "Photo Black" and "Photo Grey".
The Epson replaced a Brother color laser printer that served me well 5+ years, but of course color laser prints don't approach the quality of color inkjet prints.
Yeah, if you are someone who needs inkjet, epson ecotank is 100% the best option on the market.
also, the "just a tank of ink" model makes it super easy to try out different kinds of ink - you mentioned "photo grey" and "photo black" but there are actually specialty inks for B+W prints that you can experiment with etc.
I don’t know where you’re coming from. I bought a color inkjet Brother printer years ago and I’m extremely satisfied. After using Epson and HP for years, it… just works. Every time I click "print", it prints.
"Buy Brother" is still my answer. If you need high quality prints, don’t buy a consumer grade printer.
Between Walgreens and Fedex the have made it crazy convenient to upload my images to get them printed in high quality format in any size I want for a fairly cheap price. If you don't have one nearby the library offers decent priced alternative. A b/w printer is all I need and will definitely be avoiding subscriptions however possible
FWIW I recently got a color Laser brother printer (MFC-L3740CDW) that's been working well. My needs aren't for super high resolution or anything but it does the basics well enough, and doesn't appear to have any subscription nonsense attached to it.
Most people looking to print at home need it for things like printing assignments, plane/concert tickets, and other general documents, and that’s who those recommendations are for. Color laser printers are designed for these kinds of documents, not photo printing.
If you have a need for something specific, you’d need to investigate the right product. At this point in time, printing pictures at home is a special requirement, as most people either don’t print them at all, or they use the convenience store down the street where it’s much cheaper than maintaining the equipment at home.
Can anyone comment on what is the best quality color printing option at a moderate cost, and how much volume does it take to make it more economical than using a print shop?
Having done the ink jet song and dance for a while with multiple printers over the years I bought a color laser jet Brother HL-3170CDW printer 10 years ago for $170.
Wireless and it just works. Economical as well with the cartridges.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit. Buy Brother printers.
But it’s a worrisome trend that is now spreading to so many areas. We need to opt out and start using alternatives. Even if it means using an inferior product.
Brother used to be my go to as well but they have apparently started putting DRM checks in their toner/ink cartridges as well. I'm not aware of any brands now that aren't doing this.
The DRM in my Brother printer (HL-L2350DW) is quite limited: it write non genuine toner somewhere in the print dialog properties and that's it. Nothing is disabled and the print quality is not degraded.
But I am not sure if forensic requirements is the reason why people didn't want to make printers. I suspect the demand for printing at home has declined to the point where making a good printer is no longer economically worthwhile.
You are forgetting that merely the fact that your product is open source doesn't mean you won't go bankrupt because you are going to compete with HP, Brother, Samsung, Lexmark, etc. 99.9% of people don't care that your gizmo is open source, they want to print - and ideally cheaper and better than elsewhere. If the only thing in your favor is open source then you will fail in the market. Also any low quantity, boutique production is by definition going to be more expensive that mass produced models.
And don't get me started on the patent minefield that covers many aspects of printer technology. You will have to license those - or be sued into oblivion.
Good luck!
People calling for "someone" to make open source this or that are usually completely ignoring elementary economics of the endeavor. It really has zero to do with any sort of government tracking dots conspiracy (not all printers do that) or that there is supposedly no demand to print at home (if that was true then HP etc. would have been bankrupt already and not making more crappy consumer printers).
Oh and that completely ignores the elephant in the room - do you think that the fact the printer firmware is by some hypothetical magic open source now will prevent the OEM from DRMing the toner/inks? The DRM is not meant to prevent dedicated individuals to bypass it - only to keep 99% of people who barely know how to put new consumables in from using competitor's supplies. Those are certainly not going to flash firmware without the DRM into their printers en masse.
Most people don't unlock/jailbreak their phones either - they want to use them as phones, not to hack this or that. They don't have the technical skills required either - and won't pay others to do it in any significant quantity. Heck, if you want to hack your DRMed printer you could do that even today already, there are hacks and DRM bypasses for many of those DRMed printers online ...
An open source printer is a mirage and a complete red herring.
Latest MacOS versions for some reason have pretty bad Brother printer support - I have to print on my (admittedly pretty old) printer using a special app instead of just sending it to the printer as it used to work. Maybe newer ones don't have this problem?
The concept is silly...but when you look at the details it's hard to conclude this isn't outright aimed at tricking users:
Big talk about unlimited ink...but the absurdly low page limit (20 per month) is well hidden. It's completely omitted from the main info page [0] and on the page where is was included it is cleverly hidden beneath the fold in a place where there is little indication that there is a scrollable section hidden [1] [2]. And the spacing is inconsistent in exactly right places to achieve this effect on the most common resolution...1080. [3]
Spicy cancellation fee is also hidden behind endless scrolling animations and collapsible sections right at of the FAQ.
It is sad that HP has come down to this. Years ago they were a company an EE had a ton of respect for because of their excellent test equipment. That's spun out to Agilent and now HP is down just mining printer ink like gold.
I think they still make good calculators though??? (/me hugs my 15C).
They spun out their whole calculator division to a company called Royal. I think Royal is just manufacturing HP designs so hopefully quality held up, but I'm not sure.
On Windows, I cannot even scan a document without first logging in to their "HP Smart" App with an HP account. And it takes Camera Access Permissions for some reason. And it installs a background task that wakes up my PC every night for some kind of diagnostic scan.
I have a Brother printer, it was like $90 and it works well. It's a B&W laser only but it does its job well and I can't complain. I replaced a Brother MFC inkjet only because the feeder was dying and the drivers weren't being updated anymore.
Printing as service doesn't make any sense unless someone was printing and mailing the output to me. That would actually be worthwhile for a lot of people.
> Printing as service doesn't make any sense unless someone was printing and mailing the output to me. That would actually be worthwhile for a lot of people.
This is called a print shop, and has existed for basically as long as printers have. You might not like the prices they charge for a single print + mailing, though.
HP’s 20 pages for $7/month is MORE expensive than the FedEx shop ½ mile from my house charges and far more than the public library. It gets better if you go up to their pricier plans and actually need to print hundreds of color photographs per month but can’t wait for mail delivery, but this just seems like a very niche market with such high prices.
It is kind of funny how printers just hop onto the latest marketing trends. Previously it was the "razor blade" model of making the device "inexpensive" and charging more for the consumables, now its subscriptions.
The thing for me is that neither the razor blade model nor the subscription model fit my actual use of the product. For me a printer is essentially a piece of infrastructure. It's not the kind of thing I upgrade or want to pay any attention to. I buy one, set it up, and basically run it until it dies or falls out of support. I only replace them when I absolutely have to, and I would prefer that to be as infrequent as possible.
I'm willing to pay for something that fits that model. Charge me the real cost for the physical printer - including R&D and ongoing support - and in turn come back down to reality on the consumables.
I'm saddened that no one can make this model work, but I understand why. Very few people are going to want to go from $100 printers to $500 printers. Though, as the world becomes more paperless I can see this occurring in the long tail - "Hey, buy a printer. Never know when you'll need it and it's going to last you."
All they do is alienate their customers. Had to chose a laser printer for my dad and went with Brother. It feels a bit worse than HP in general but at least I don’t have to great an online account in order to use the scanner functionality.
Really a shame that they are killing their business. I really loved their printers.
Oh, they have. And they know exactly what level of dickishness optimises revenue from the rubes, sorry, valued customers, without going too far - the “self-limiting-limit”, if you will.
HP’s reputation for consumer-grade peripherals is already low enough as it is, HP is not afraid of losing “informed-enthusiast” customers - they’ve already done that.
We are not HP’s desired customer base; they don’t want our patronage.
In the UK, I’ve had a cheap HP printer for several years, with their subscription, which delivers ink cartridges when needed. It’s free up to 15 pages per month, at which point I believe it’s £1 per 10 pages, ad-hoc. I very very rarely print anything so virtually every month is free. And the couple of times I’ve had to print more than 15 pages, I’ve paid the £1 and that was it.
It works perfectly for me, but if they tried to pull this same $7/mo minimum here, I’d ditch it immediately. I’m not paying $84/year just for the few times a year I need to print something.
In an office it makes sense as they maintain the printers for you and keep them working. No surprise when an expensive printer breaks and has to be replaced.
I keep looking and asking this all over the place, haven't found one yet. I don't see why not, it's basically a 3d printer with two axes instead of 3 and toner ribbon cartridges are ubiquitous, much much cheaper than filament. I don't understand why nobody has done this, I might go ahead and do it one day down the road if it doesn't happen before I get around to it.
I found that I have little need to print in color. When printing photos I use a high end service like Mpix and the local big box store when quality is not important. At home my 10 year old Brother laser printer just works. I replaced the toner cartridge once or twice.
I've bought both Canon and Brother, both were pretty nice
(laser of course.. with even color laser printers being $200, there is no reason to keep inkjet at home)
I worked at HP from 2014 to 2021, though not for the Instant Ink team.
The TL;DR is that I think Instant Ink is an absolutely fine program that's ruined by morons that either can't read or think they're devious and think they're going to be able to swindle HP out of ink for pennies.
The first thing you absolutely must know is that Instant Ink is an optional program. You still have the ability to buy and use normal ink cartridges. IMO, that alone should shrug most criticism of the Instant Ink program. You think it's a scam? Fine. Don't subscribe to it. Done.
Second, Instant Ink is not a subscription to ink cartridges, it's a subscription to printed pages. The ink is merely provided as a vehicle to provide the printed pages that you're paying for. That's why the Instant Ink subscription tiers are based on printed pages, and not based on ink used.
This means that if you subscribe to Instant Ink, get your cartridges, then cancel the plan, of course you don't get to keep printing with the cartridges! You didn't pay for the ink!
This is not scumbag behavior. You didn't pay for the ink. You paid for printed pages. You canceled your subscription, your quota ran out, so why would you think you get to keep printing with those cartridges?
But...people think they're geniuses! They rub their hands together while thinking "Heheh, I'll buy a month of Instant Ink, get my cartridges, then cancel, and I'll have received ink for only $3!" then go into an absolute rage against HP when they go through their quota and their printer won't print anymore. It's completely stupid.
If you print frequently and will actually use most of your quota, Instant Ink is a great program that actually does save you money on ink! But people misunderstand (likely deliberately) how it works, and think it's a scam and that HP is a shitty company for it.
It's still HP's fault. It's their business model and people will be people, including the too clever for their own good, irrational skinflints that are prone to raging on line.
Behavior is frequently hard to anticipate, but this isn't one of those cases. If your scheme involves everyone comprehending subscription terms you've failed: people don't do that, for better or worse.
Imagine you buy a can of turtle wax that locks after 20 opens. "We don't sell wax! We sell car waxes!" A water hose that sells sips of water.
You're buying ink. Just because HP wants to market it as something different doesn't make their bullshit true. Unless they're shipping you a printed page, they're selling you ink and then charging you per use, their bottom line doesn't list pages printed, it lists profit per cartridge. People just don't like buying an object and paying for it like it's a service, because it's an obvious scam. Ink is a product.
Honestly, this is like watching a movie about "How MBA's kill businesses" in real time. The lure of a recurring revenue forecast has driven HP into investing in dodgy subscription services instead of further improving their core product (aka
making better printers).
Early on revenue will increase but, after some time, HP will wake up to a dwindling customer base and alternatives eating their lunch. No doubt that those same MBA's will have already been promoted and/or left, whilst touting their "wins".
The refusal by these companies to accept the realities of the modern printer market reminds me of the tagline that Michael Scott wrote for Dunder Mifflin:
It can make sense for a company where you know the printers will be used regularly and heavily and thus will also be subject to a lot of wear and tear, plus the pricing the big players offer can be pretty decent.
>These techdirt articles with 15 links mixed in and unclear sources are ....dirt.
What 15 links and what unclear sources?
There's 4 links in the article, 2 of which are direct links to HP pages that pertain to what is in the paragraph, 1 is direct link to a video that is referenced, and 1 is past coverage about a lawsuit. All are acting as sources and all are pretty clear to me?
more of a general comment, not as many in this one true, but having to sift thru each one, over references to other articles, related video, etc to figure out which is the source one they're actually writing about is annoying.
Anyways this isn't even news, already talked about almost a week ago
What really disappoints me is the lack of creativity in generating revenue by providing the customer value. It's a sad state when a technology company can only do "Look what this other industry did; we should do it too!" It's obviously a pathetic sad ploy by someone who isn't good enough at reading their market demographic to come up with something better.
I put this in the same category as Wendy's attempting "surge" pricing to make more money during busy times. I really can't imagine wanting to pay extra for a basic hamburger that the drugged out employees can't seem to get right even on the best of days. Make something better, and I'll pay more.
I know that people really want to bash this, but there are people out there that this would be a benefit to them. Those that do infrequent printing.
And frankly, the math isnt bad.
Looking at their cheapest plan which is $7 a month for 20 pages. 20 color prints from staples is $13.20. 20 black and white prints is only $4 so if you are never doing color it is questionable.
But the math gets better if you go slightly higher. 50 pages (2.5x the previous tier) is only $9 instead of 6. 50 color prints from staples is $33. 50 black and white prints from staples is $10.
And yes, I realize that if you were to buy the printer and buy the ink it would likely be cheaper. But first that requires being able to spend the money on a printer, which not everyone may have that money or it will have to go on a credit card.
Second you may have to worry about dry ink if you really print that infrequently (I honestly don't know how big of a problem this really is, but I know its a thing I see repeated a lot).
I am just saying, HP has some some shady stuff. I am not necessarily giving them a pass with this, but for infrequent (but consistent) printing it isnt horrible and you can do it at home instead of needing to go out.
Edit: However that privacy policy is horrible, and does really ruin a plan like this.
> Looking at their cheapest plan which is $7 a month for 20 pages.
And if you cancel within a year you pay a $120 fee ($60 if more than a year and less than two years). Meanwhile, you could get an identical-except-the-serial-number printer model (ENVY 6065e) from Best Buy for $71.
What if I want to cancel my printer plan?
You can cancel anytime. However, if you cancel after the first 30 days but still within the first two years, there is a cancellation fee.
Printer
HP ENVY 6020e
After 30 days and up to 12 months from enrollment date
$120
After 12 months and up to 24 months from enrollment date
$60
Yes they have a cancelation fee and that part sucks, I am not disputing that.
But part of looking at this should be looking at your current printing habbits, if I already go to staples on a monthly basis and print 20ish pages. This is cheaper unless those pages are black and white. If I print 50 its cheaper no matter what.
And yes I know you can go buy the printer, but lets not forget that this monthly cost also includes the ink and warranty if anything goes wrong.
Again here, I am not saying it is the best deal. But the math is not as bad as people are jumping at if you already know what your printing habits are and you just want to bring it home.
You get 20 pages credit, which btw carries over to 3 times your monthly plan. So if you know your going to be printing somewhat consistently (which I said in my original comment) and you will use the pages the math lines up.
Even if we just look at the fact that it adds 10-15 pages (I don't know why its a range) of $1 after you use your pages that is still cheaper than going to staples.
My 20 year old HP laser jet costs me a minimum of $0 to run per month. And if I go 6 months without printing, it still costs me $0 a month. The math doesn’t line up, it’s a cash grab plain and simple.
I am comparing this to going out and getting prints from staples. because thats what this is, this is a subscription service meant to target infrequent (but consistent) printing that people may just go to staples for.
People that may not want to think about wether their printer works (this includes a warranty btw), what their ink level is and not need to drop a decent amount of money on ink when they run out, etc.
The simple fact is, this is cheaper going to those stores to print. That alone means it is competitively priced.
If it isn't for you, thats fine. But it would not be hard to justify this compared going to staples on a regular basis. Especially if you don't already have a printer.
I know everyone hates subscriptions, and it sucks how much friction is being put in the way of folks who don't want it. But I've loved having an HP Smart plan. Most of the time I don't print a ton so I pay $1.50/month for the random items that come up in my life. Then every August I bump up the plan since my wife is a teacher and prints a lot more in preparation for the school year. I've gotten 3 ink refills which would cost ~$210, vs ~$90 for the subscription in the past 3.5 years and I never had the annoying moment of needing to print something but being low on cyan and having to run to Staples.
Don't get me wrong, they are likely doing the same thing that many other subscriptions do. Hoping you sign up and you forget that you have it and they just bring in the money.
But if you know you are going to use it (like maybe you already take a regular trip to a printer), you know how much you are going to print, it isnt horrible.
Sure being locked in for 2 years sucks, but given they are sending you hardware some sort of contract is likely required.
HP needs to pivot into an adjacent market or something. I know they also make desktop/laptop PCs, but maybe spend more R&D on making them decent and marketing to make people aware they know they even exist. I'm a huge PC gamer, and granted most of us build our PC ourselves, but those that buy pre-builts haven't even HEARD of the HP Omen brand. It's not even on their radar.
Printers are becoming less and less necessary. Even my cats' veterinarian offers to have care instructions and visit information e-mailed to me rather than printed.
But rather than try to find something else to produce and leave behind a dying industry, they're doubling down and enshittifying.
Ah... The pinnacle of enshitification. Dear HP, I would like to also suggest to charge on per scanned page basis and if possible also not only print on HP ink but on HP paper only. If you could also for free monitor all my printer activity, that will be much appreciated!
There are so many other good printer alternatives. Brother has been brought elsewhere, but I recently bought a Canon laser printer which has been fantastic. Great color reproduction, fast, easy. And, you know, I just own it so I can do whatever I want.
This is the time on HN when people list alternatives.
I found a slightly older popular make&model of printer that does what I want, can be airgapped/datadioded, and I'd guess will have plentiful third-party supplies for many years. (Barring trade issues that would mean we have much bigger problems than printing.)
And I'm not going to tell you HN bastids which make&model that is. While I decide whether I can stockpile a few new-old-stock backup units.
Brother is far behind the competition from Epson and Canon when it comes to prosumer color inkjet/inktank printing, as I discovered to my cost. I'm referring to SMB printers in the $400-$1000 range, not the $80 consumer injkets that crap out after 50 pages.
Brother colour printers top out at 4 inks (CMYK), which will make most images look washed out, greens resembling blue, etc.
Yes they are economical with the ink use, but the difference between a Brother and an Epson/Canon (which support 6 inks) for colour is night and day. You'll get way better quality color printing at Staples printing from a rental workstation .
That isn't to say I support this ridiculous model of subscriptions. It's just to say that "Buy Brother" isn't the answer for everybody.