Some products are sold at a loss so the refills can be sold at a profit

There is a short answer about consumable-driven pricing and a useful one, and they are not the same. What follows is the useful one.

The shape of the model

A manufacturer sells the durable item at a low margin and recovers profit through consumables the buyer must return for repeatedly. This works only where the consumable is proprietary, since an open standard would let competitors supply it at cost.

Printers, coffee systems, razors, water filters and some cleaning appliances all use versions of the arrangement. The model is not inherently exploitative, since it lowers the entry price and spreads cost over use. It becomes a problem when the total cost is hard to discover before committing to the platform.

Working out total cost

Estimate your usage rate honestly, then multiply by the consumable cost per use and by the expected years of ownership. Add scheduled maintenance items with their own lives, which are frequently omitted from consumable calculations. Compare that total against the equivalent total for alternatives rather than comparing purchase prices.

The measurable part is this: the ranking of products frequently reverses when this is done, which is the entire point of doing it. Where a manufacturer publishes a cost per use, check what usage assumptions produced it.

How the consumable is protected

Physical design can make a cartridge hard to copy, using shapes, seals and interfaces that are patented. Electronic authentication is common, with chips that the machine checks before accepting a supply.

Firmware updates can change what a machine accepts after purchase, which has caused disputes in several markets. Regional coding restricts supplies to particular markets and complicates buying from cheaper sources. Regulators in some jurisdictions have taken an interest in these practices, and the position varies by country.

Third-party and refilled supplies

Independent suppliers exist for most popular platforms, usually at substantially lower prices. Quality varies, and poor supplies can cause damage that is genuinely the fault of the supply rather than the machine. Manufacturer warranties frequently exclude damage caused by non-approved consumables, though a blanket refusal may not survive local consumer law.

Refilling and remanufacturing reduce waste and cost, and their reliability differs by category and supplier.

The availability of a healthy independent supply market is itself a reason to prefer one platform over another.

Judging the platform, not the machine

The purchase decision is really a decision about which supply chain you will be tied to for years. Ask how long the platform has existed and whether previous generations are still supplied. Ask whether supplies are available from multiple sources, and at what price spread.

The measurable part is this: ask whether the machine works with a generic alternative, and whether the manufacturer has ever restricted that. A platform with open supplies and long support is worth a higher entry price than one without.

Where the model is genuinely reasonable

Spreading cost over use suits people who use a product rarely and would not justify a high entry price. Consumables that genuinely require precision manufacturing, such as filters with certified performance, cost real money to make.

In the small print, certification of a consumable can matter for safety or health, which is a legitimate reason to restrict what a machine accepts. The reasonable version of the model is transparent about running cost, and the unreasonable version is not. This site does not compare running costs across brands, so long-term cost tracking published by others is the evidence to seek.

The takeaway

You are choosing a supply chain, not a machine, so compare the totals over the years you will own it.

The question is rarely which is best. It is which is enough.