I noticed this graph on Hedgewytch's Tumbling and traced it back to its apparent origin, 3 years ago, on gizmodo.
I don't know if the numbers are correct, but the relative costs look about right to me, especially the cost of HP ink.
Notice that human blood is cheaper than HP ink. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
We have two HP printers. One is a Laserjet 5MP which we've owned for 12 years and has never failed us. It takes large toner cartridges which can be bought relatively cheaply and last a year, even if I'm printing novels. If this printer ever breaks, I think my life will be ruined.
The second is a Photosmart 3110. The price gouging on the tiny ink cartridges for HP's recent printers is astonishing and HP, needless to say, go out of their way to make sure cheaper third party replacements won't work. To add insult to injury, the printer keeps track of how long each cartridge has been in and refuses to print if a cartridge exceeds an arbitrary age.
The weird thing is, the value for money of the HP products has actually gone backwards. How did that happen?
I don't know if the numbers are correct, but the relative costs look about right to me, especially the cost of HP ink.Notice that human blood is cheaper than HP ink. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
We have two HP printers. One is a Laserjet 5MP which we've owned for 12 years and has never failed us. It takes large toner cartridges which can be bought relatively cheaply and last a year, even if I'm printing novels. If this printer ever breaks, I think my life will be ruined.
The second is a Photosmart 3110. The price gouging on the tiny ink cartridges for HP's recent printers is astonishing and HP, needless to say, go out of their way to make sure cheaper third party replacements won't work. To add insult to injury, the printer keeps track of how long each cartridge has been in and refuses to print if a cartridge exceeds an arbitrary age.
The weird thing is, the value for money of the HP products has actually gone backwards. How did that happen?