Why are scanners more expensive than printers WITH SCANNERS??

[Homercidal]

I'm looking to get a scanner for our Design Department and it's amazing to me that an Office All In One printer, with a document feeder, costs significantly less than a scanner with Document Feeder.

It doesn't make sense that they can sell a scanner WITH A PRINT SYSTEM BUILT IN, for less than a scanner WITHOUT THE PRINT SYSTEM!!

I don't understand it. I can buy the printer for them, network it, and have them simply not use the inkjet printer that comes with it. They already have a nice color laser. I just don't understand why they can't make a cheap scanner, like $80-120, and add an ADF for like $20-30!

Well, I gotta go run to the store. Looks like I'm buying a printer.

 

[Homercidal]

Never mind. I figured it out.

Printers cost less because they price them below profit, making it up on the sale of ink. Scanners, on the other hand, don't provide a continual source of revenue for the manufacturer.

 

[nukebrewer]

Never mind. I figured it out.

Printers cost less because they price them below profit, making it up on the sale of ink. Scanners, on the other hand, don't provide a continual source of revenue for the manufacturer.

Verging OT a bit, but I recently read that in a lot of cases, it's actually cheaper to just buy a new printer that comes with ink than to buy the refill ink for your current printer. Crazy.

 

[TopgunTango]

Verging OT a bit, but I recently read that in a lot of cases, it's actually cheaper to just buy a new printer that comes with ink than to buy the refill ink for your current printer. Crazy.

Continuing the slight OT to argue this statement.

Factory ink cartridges are rarely full or good quality/efficiency. It is only true if you follow the same logic that is it technically cheaper to buy new pants every couple of weeks instead of having the same pair of pants dry-cleaned. Or again, that it is technically cheaper to buy a tool bundle/combo kit than to buy just the tool that you need.

In any of those cases, it is technically cheaper to just throw away the old product and buy a new one instead of maintaining the one that you have. It sure ain't eco-friendly, though.

 

[Homercidal]

I actually have a printer that takes ink that's $5 a cartridge. It's technically the SAME printer as one that costs $100 less, but that one can't take the $5 ink.

The effect was to give consumers a choice of spending a little more up front and get cheap consumables, or save money on the printer purchase and make up for it in ink.

I got it from my MIL because it has an error. She couldn't get it working and just bought a cheap $50 printer.

 

[DromJohn]

Our printer/scanner came with Photoshop for cheaper than Photoshop costs by itself.
This probably fits Homercidal's theory that we'd buy more ink if we had Photoshop.

 

[Homercidal]

I really need to get that printer back online. I found some print-and-fold paper cut-out designs online for all kinds of sci-fi things. Already built the TARDIS and K9. There's tons of stuff. I bet it would be a fun thing to do with the kids. Just need to buy some heavier paper. The plain copy paper stuf is hard to work with.

 

[IslandLizard]

If scan quality matters, a dedicated scanner together WITH the right software and driver will usually produce much better and smoother images than an All-in-One. For example, the all-in-ones rely on single-click or one-button scan methods and heavy (micro)sharpening.

I still have a few legacy scanners (read "SCSI" and $$$$-$$$$$) around just for that smooth, rich quality I crave. Then again, I made a living in photography and imaging so my standards should be high.

It's pretty appalling seeing the output of modern day (LED <ugh>) scanners and related imaging products, even so-called prosumer models. Given today's access to cheap chips and integrated electronics one would expect the quality to soar at bargain basement prices. Yet the quality is abysmal, at best.

 

[Homercidal]

Yep, our needs are basically just for a low-end scanner. I ended up buying a dedicated scanner even so. Not a very expensive one, so probably not much better than the cheap printer models. If we were into imaging, photography, etc. a $1000 scanner might be a necessity, but we mostly scan POs, proposals, etc. As long as the text or image is legible, it's good to go.

I agree. I would think that companies could build a remarkably better scanner for not much money nowadays, but they haven't quite hit the market.

I think a lot of the need for scanners declined with the improvement in digital cameras. People don't need to take a picture and scan it in order to email it or share it online.

 

[passedpawn]

Fujitsu makes some great sheet feeder scanners. A friend of mine has one and it's remarkable (software bundle was very nice, too). Scanners with LED illumination instead of the fluorescent tube seem to get going much faster. I have an epson that's very fast. Software blows though. It's hard to evaluate the software when you buy a scanner, but that's as important as the hardware unless you're using 3rd party software that uses a TWAIN driver to get the scan. Those are my 2 cents.

 

[BreezyBrew]

I work with departmental scanners for a living and you definitely get what you pay for. The Fujutsu Scan Snap is great if you only are going to scan PDFs. I could go on and on but that's the jist of it.

 

[passedpawn]

I work with departmental scanners for a living and you definitely get what you pay for. The Fujutsu Scan Snap is great if you only are going to scan PDFs. I could go on and on but that's the jist of it.

Yep, I do a ton of scanning to PDFs. Almost everything, in fact.