backtop

Hardware Epson Clamps Down on Ink Cartridge Makers
Brandon Hill (Blog) - November 30, 2006 5:58 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by edlind.. on Dec 27 at 12:44 PM

Epson R220 Photo Inkjet Printer
Epson takes steps to protect its ink cartridge business in the United States

When DailyTech last visited the "Inkjet Cartel," Epson was taking US-based e-tailers to court over the sale of generic Epson-compatible ink cartridges. Epson was pretty confident that things would go in its favor given that it had successfully won cases against companies in Europe and Asia.

Luckily for Epson (and sadly for consumers), the company's winning streak has extended into the United States. The company filed complaints with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against 24 companies in February of this year. The infractions cited ranged from manufacturing aftermarket ink cartridges to importing ink cartridges from foreign countries for sale in the United States. Network World reports:

Of the 24 companies, five have agreed to settle with Epson at both the ITC and district court. A further three companies have agreed with the ITC to stop importing cartridges, but will have their cases heard at the district court. Another eight companies have had default judgments filed against them at the ITC because they failed to respond to the complaint with the time allowed, said Epson. Trials against the remaining companies at the ITC will begin in January.

Epson's string of victories could lead other printer manufacturers to follow suit. The replacement inkjet market is a huge business for printer manufacturers and they are pulling out all the stops to protect their bread and butter.  Hewlett-Packard was so depended on its ink cartridge business at one point that it was generating nearly all of the company's profits.

The tricks that the printer manufacturers have used to get customers tied into buying expensive OEM cartridges range from giving customers meager "starter" cartridges with printer purchases or including chips on the cartridges to prevent customers from using generics. And we can't forget the ink cartridges that will report empty even though there is still plenty of ink left to print dozens of pages.

But all of this is expected. Manufacturers are practically giving away inkjet printers, enticing customers with a low cost of entry. And then customers are hit in the wallet when it comes time to replace the inks cartridges.

Let's take the Epson R220 for example. MSRP on the printer is $89.99. RitzCamera currently has the printer for $89.99 minus a $20 Google Checkout coupon minus a $50 mail-in rebate. That bring the total to just $20. But we can’t stop there. We have to also take a look at the ink cartridges as well. A single black cartridge will set you back $17.99 while a 5-color multi-pack will set you back $67.99 from RitzCamera. Going to an office supply store like Staples won’t save you much either at $17.35 for a black cartridge and $12.25 for each color cartridge.

And printer manufacturers are wondering why the generic ink cartridge business is a booming industry…

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well then...
By Chadder007 on 11/30/2006 6:21:32 PM , Rating: 5
Ill just Clamp down on not ever purchasing an Epson again.




RE: Well then...
By CascadingDarkness on 11/30/2006 6:35:19 PM , Rating: 5
I second this. I already recommended against Epson because of their outrageous ink prices. I am now literally going to tell people they would have to be idiots to buy them.

While the printers are all cheap they are mostly junk also. With life span far less than 5 years this is just another reason to go to another brand.


RE: Well then...
By Flunk on 11/30/2006 8:40:21 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, Epson printers are garbage. I've had much better luck with "another" brand of inkjet printers. The ink is still expensive (actually more expensive per cartridge) but the cartridges last me well over a year and the printer is holding up quite well.

Question, why is it illegal to make generic cartridges? Does one company own the patent on the standard size toilet paper roll? Can they sue every other company that tries to make rolls the same size? This is just as silly. Although I must say many brands of generic cartridges are complete crap, not all of them are.


RE: Well then...
By Samus on 12/3/2006 11:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, Epson printers are fine.

Secondly, the aftermarket ink usually lacks enough alcohol content to protect the internal metal components of the print head from corrosion. Generally water is substituted. If you are picky, the colors are sometimes not a dead-on match to the OEM ink, either.

I know people that use refilled and 3rd party ink and their printer life is usually pretty short, making them think the printer manufacture makes a crappy printer (and usually causing them to warranty-repair the printer/printhead) when it was the 3rd party ink that did the damage all along.

I use OEM ink in my C62 Epson, and its 4 years old. Runs like a top. A quick search on Google will find dozems of people having problems with this printer, and all of them have used aftermarket ink at some point. Go figure.


RE: Well then...
By Wwhat on 12/3/2006 1:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
It would cost them 2 dollars tops and probably much less to make the parts oxide-proof, you can use a 1 atom thick goldplating or plastic or whatever coating on the few small parts that aren't plastic already, or fabricate them from rustproof materials like ceramic or stainless steel.
So your arguments are BS
They are milking people and that's all there is to it, perhaps the DoJ should look a little deeper, read some of their internal e-mails.


RE: Well then...
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2006 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well bear in mind that some of that high price isn't just from Epson or whatever type of printer you have. The stores that sell those ink cartridges make a pretty good profit on them as well. I worked at Best Buy as a teen and we got a good 30-50% discount on ink cartridges. All accessories like that aren't just the bread and butter of the manufacturers, but also of the stores. Things like ink, power strips, cables, etc all are heavily marked up. The only large items that are heavily marked up anymore really are things like TVs and appliances. The rest of the money is in the little things you need to go with it.


RE: Well then...
By AlexWade on 11/30/2006 9:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
What are you alternatives? HP, Lexmark? The only true alternative to the ink cartel is laser, which you should do anyway unless you need photo-quality color. The fact is nobody, and I mean nobody, can produce better pictures from ink than Epson. That doesn't make them the best, as HP is the best overall. But for people wanting pictures, Epson is miles ahead of the competition.

Still, everyone should avoid ink as long as you can. Go black and white laser and save a lot of $. Toner costs a lot, but it lasts forever.


RE: Well then...
By Kougar on 12/1/2006 1:10:10 AM , Rating: 1
I completely agree. I have 5 or 6 year old Epson 880, and it can print full page quality photos with offbrand ink and cheap glossy paper that can fool anyone I know into thinking it was a professional print job. I don't neeed to upgrade to a new fancy printer just to get faster print times, as I know the quality sure won't be any better.

Epson long ago stopped making ink for this thing, so I depend on offbrand ink. Using an Anandtech forum special I netted three tri-color cartrdiges and three black cartridges for under $20 shipped. I don't consider that a rip off at all...

For anyone interested, here's the old link: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid... which has repeated previously. Use google checkout for an extra discount, and buy the right quantity to get a shipping discount, both of which combine with the coupon code discount. Even without the codes it's $24 and shipping for all 6.


RE: Well then...
By Runiteshark on 12/1/2006 3:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
Gotta agree. Every single Lexmark, from the cheapest $30 to the most expensive $160 ink printer has always screwed up on me. So screw epson. I got an Epson CX5400 or something, and I have never ever had a problem with it once. The ink is expensive, sure, but it puts out better quality pictures then any printer I have owned. Better then dell, better then lexmark, and so forth.


So all this shit talking about Epson really needs to be put into perspective. If you don't like ink prices, then go laser.


RE: Well then...
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 3
A bit overstated. Canon printers print as well or better than Epson ones. Epson certainly isn't miles ahead of Canon. Even perhaps but that's about it.


RE: Well then...
By Soviet Robot on 12/2/2006 11:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
HP and Canon's photo printers are damn comparable if not better and more economical.


RE: Well then...
By edlind on 12/27/2006 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
We're ALL missing the proper direction. It's time to think more electronic and less paper & ink. Create electronic photo albums, share photos via email or websites. Save albums on memory sticks/SD cards, etc. For the price of a printer, you can now purchase framed monitors from which you can view slide shows from a memory stick. That's a one-time purchase! We have technology to help us reduce waste...and COST...if we only would change our ways about having to have a "hard copy" all the time. If we really put our minds to it, we can rid ourselves of this opportunity by the manufacturers to gouge us because of our inability to conform to the full capabilities of the technology currently available. Think about it...


What...
By cscpianoman on 11/30/2006 7:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
How is this any different than someone buying a third party controller for say a Super Nintendo? Last time I checked those were still legal...




RE: What...
By Chadder007 on 11/30/2006 10:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
I also believe its akin to having a Car manufacturer say you can only buy their brand gas to put into the car.


RE: What...
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Would you buy only their brand of gas if they sold you a brand new Toyota Camry class of car (or even a Corvette) for $1,000 BUT that car required using their gas only? That's about how the printer market works. And people take the deal because they want that $1000 brand new car! Thing is that they complain bitterly about the $25/gallon price for the gas and think they're being ripped off and that they should be allowed to use third party gas. Duh!


RE: What...
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
I should also say that in that scenario, that over time people then think that $1,000 is the normal price of a car and nothing special, "what's the deal?".


RE: What...
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Also... this is less fantasy than one might think. Car leasing basically runs this way. New car, cheap up front, but very very spendy in the long run. But so many people love it! Maybe the printer companies could get into printer leasing instead.


RE: What...
By jtesoro on 12/1/2006 10:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
I just attended a series of business/marketing workshops, and one case study (outside the US) was of a generic ink reseller who sued Epson because Epson ran an advertisement which infringed on the generic guy's copyrights. The generic ink reseller won, and guess what the end result was? The generic guy became the exclusive distributor of original Epson ink! So they get to sell original Epson stuff sold side-by-side with refills. What a turnaround!

Now I'm not sure if there are other "story-altering" details, but this definitely was one of the more entertaining parts of our workshop!


Epson sucks
By SleepyItes on 12/1/2006 1:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
I just recently bought an Epson PSC (CX4800 I think) and I was disgusted with the price of ink cartridges. As soon as my ink runs out I am throwing that piece of garbage away and getting another Canon. The Canon i450 I got 3 years ago is still running strong and the black ink costs less than $7 (tri-color is $18, I think). Now I know that it is best to get a separate scanner and printer (copies would be nice but you can always scan and print instead), and buy the printer with the cheapest ink cartridges available, as long as it prints decent photos.




RE: Epson sucks
By OCedHrt on 12/1/2006 2:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
Simply buy the generic ink for the Epson. I've had several epson printers that have cost me $20 or so after rebates. The best part is that you can buy several sets (black + all colors) for ~$20 easily.

However, generic ink is not heaven, they frequently clog the print heads on the printers. I think Epson should only have a case in this area. Anyone should be able to make ink cartridges, but the generics are like selling 80 octane gasoline as 86 unless they are willing to advertise them as subpar (larger microbeads, clog print heads, etc).


RE: Epson sucks
By kenoa on 12/1/2006 9:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
If you need third party ink you can still find it in Canada at www.metawatch.ca.

We have the lowest prices going in Canada.

We Carry compatible cartridges for Epson and Canon as well as remanufactured cartridges for HP etc..

Lets just hope that the North American market follows the european market where they are outlawing the use of "Chips" that prevent the use of 3rd party inks.


RE: Epson sucks
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Is modern technology allowed in ink cartridges for reasons other than keeping third parties from making them, or is low-tech required of Canadian printers generally?


RE: Epson sucks
By coldpower27 on 12/2/2006 10:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
Do you carry the replacement for the CLI-8 and PGI-5 series of tanks, as the printer I am looking at the Canon Pixma IP4300 utilizes those and you guys don't seem to carry that particular ink cartridge.


People still use inkjet?
By RMSistight on 12/1/2006 12:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
This is why I never use inkjet. Laser printers FTW...in black or color. NEVER AGAIN!

I tell everyone I know to buy laser printers as well. There is just no reason to buy inkjet anymore.




RE: People still use inkjet?
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Even good color laser printers aren't all that great for photos. I use a Canon i9900. It works fine w/o clogs even if I don't print anything for months (I use it almost exclusively for photos and that tends to come in "bunches", sometimes with large gaps, esp in the rainy months after the holidays are over).



RE: People still use inkjet?
By Schrag4 on 12/1/2006 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
I got a Canon photo printer a few years back (S900) and although the prints initially looked great, eventually it started showing 'lines' in the prints. You could tell where it made each pass when printing.

Not only that, but between ink and special photo paper, it was just too expensive. Sure, it was convenient to be able to print off a few pics, but I eventually realized that Wal-Mart (or Target, Yahoo, etc for you Wal-Mart haters) is cheaper and more reliable for prints.

My next printer will likely be laser. The only thing I'd need a photo printer for is if I were printing off questionable material, which I'm not.


RE: People still use inkjet?
By Wwhat on 12/3/2006 2:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Little note for laser purchaser: canon (and other too no doubt) print a invisible code with laserprints and they actively help anybody that wants to trace the user.
So if you want to send an anonymous letter better think twice before using a laserprinter, or buy it with cash and don't send in the registration card.
(For instance an angry letter to your government about the printer inkt monopolies ;))


See ya Epson
By tk109 on 12/1/2006 1:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
It costs me $15 EACH at frys and I need EIGHT ink cartridges for my epson printer. After reading this article and comments it just made me go look for cheaper ink. They just screwed themselves some more by bringing attention to this. I just found a set for $40! And they give a Guarentee. Hmm $120 for Epson ink or $40 for other brand. I'm not giving Epson another cent.

I honetsly dont see how the courts can uphold this. That's just insane. Someone must be getting paid off. This goes against everything about how the free market works and supply and demand. Isn't our economy based on this!? The courts are handing out free monopoly permits.

And it's disgusting how much ink my Epson printer goes through. Must be wasting a lot needlessly like the other person above said. I'll use it one day and the levels are fine. Then come back and after not using suddenly the levels are almost nothing when I start it up again. I wouldn't put it past them that they are reporting ink level falsely to make more money.




RE: See ya Epson
By angryhippy on 12/1/2006 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Epson does have the best photo prints, but the quality of the printers have gone downhill mechanically. I remember having the original Epson Stylus, it had by far the best inkjet photo printing at the time, and it actually lasted a few years. The new Epsons seem to die within a year or so. I have CX3800 which cost $120 originally. It was constantly getting clogged and needing head cleanings which use like a 1/15 or 1/20 of the cartridge in just a minute! 2 of it's colors got totally clogged after about a year, no matter how much head cleaning I do. I just use it as a scanner/flashcard reader now, at least that works ok. The Original Stylus hardly ever got clogged heads, the new Epsons seem to get clogged heads every couple of days. It's ridiculous! Maybe the higher end Epsons are more reliable, but the low end ones seem to be junk now.

I got a cheap HP 1390 printer for $50 about 8 months ago and it prints almost as good of photo quality, and never gets clogged. Though I notice you can print about 20-30 pages after it starts giving popups that ink is totally out. :-) Looks like they're trying to get you to replace ink before it's out which is a little lame. I think I'm just going to save up and get an all-in-one color laser.


RE: See ya Epson
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
I had one of those original epson stylus printers too (since parked in my garage somewhere, was still working but probably has hard-clogged head by now).

The nozzles on that printer were probably hose-sized compared to the newer printers, and that probably cut down on clogs quite a bit. Also I think it was a dye-based ink that it used. No ground-up particles (that settle) like many of the new Epson pigment printers.

They probably could make it hose-sized again to make it reliable, but I suspect you might not like it having the original stylus's resolution.

P.S. - Ever notice that the huge professional models tend to have lower resolution specs than home-printers? I suspect it's to make it more reliable.


RE: See ya Epson
By Oregonian2 on 12/1/2006 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I've read that it's very bad for the printer if the ink is allowed to be fully used (and why the chips were there, to try and keep one from doing it). Having the print head run dry apparently creates a problem having to do with clogging, I don't recall the details. Trick was how to use as much as possible, but eliminating the possibility of using ALL of the ink -- else the user gets really mad.


By MrCoyote on 11/30/2006 11:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have an Epson R200, and let me tell you that it literally wastes ink. Every time you turn it on or start a head cleaning, it wastes a lot of ink.

I bought spongeless refillable cartridges that have a reset chip built-in. Plus 4oz bottles of dye ink for each color. I also bought a waste ink bottle and routed the tube in the printer to the outside to the bottle. This makes it so the pads in the printer never have to be replaced and never fill with waste ink! Let me tell you this was the best decision I've ever made. You should see the amount of ink that flows out into the waste bottle. What a waste!

You do have to use syringes to fill the carts back up, but I find it worth the hassle. I can have all 6 carts refilled in fifteen minutes. The 4oz bottles go a long way. I can prints hundreds and hundreds of 4x6 photos. The quality of the ink is just as good as the original Epson ink. I've compared photos side by side and they look exactly alike. Just do a google search for "refillable smart cartridges".




By Phynaz on 12/1/2006 10:32:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The quality of the ink is just as good as the original Epson ink.


Not according to this article:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hardcopy/WIR_After...


By alcalde on 12/1/2006 8:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's not "wasting ink". It's priming the system, cleaning nozzles, etc.


By 13Gigatons on 11/30/2006 7:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if you could only use Epson paper with your printer as well ?

I'd rather buy the printer $300 and then use low cost ink then pay $30 and get gouged on ink.

They should pass a law banning digital padlocks on printers.





By GoodRevrnd on 11/30/2006 7:21:02 PM , Rating: 4
You know, they technically aren't that far off from that capability. HP Advanced branded paper has some little bar code watermark that compatible printers scan to auto-configure themselves to that paper type. It wouldn't be too difficult to just have the printer reject printer without the bar code if they wanted to.


...which is why I chose a Canon inkjet
By PrinceGaz on 12/1/2006 8:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
While Canon are by no means perfect, out of all the home inkjet printer manufacturers, they are the only one that seem to realise discerning customers look at total cost of ownership when deciding which printer to buy.

Other manufacturers have really cheap printers, and Canon have some really cheap ones too at the low-end, and they invariably cost a fortune to run because of tiny ink cartridges. Even if you buy third-party cartridges for those sort of printers, they still cost a lot to run.

Spend a bit more money at the outset and the mid-range and upward inkjets from Canon use large ink-tanks that they sell relatively cheaply; so cheaply that I've found it isn't even worth considering refilling them myself as I've got better things to do with my time for what I'd save.

Maybe other printer manufacturers should use the same approach with all but their cheapest printers (which are basically given away for free but locked into expensive ink refills), so that most of us are happy to buy their ink because it is reasonably priced.




RE: ...which is why I chose a Canon inkjet
By coldpower27 on 12/2/2006 10:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, the Canon Think Tank system on the mid range to upper level of printers is a great system that allows you to save ink by using a single cartridge for each color as well as black.

They are not so expensive though if you consider that the mid range starts at about 90 CAN + tax for the lower end model and scales up from there.

I currently have a very old Canon which is very gougy on ink, 70 CAN + tax for each set of 2 black cartridges :(, the new one I am looking at cuts that down to 1/2.

I also heard Canon is pretty good on ink costs so I am going to continue to use them.

I am currently looking at the IP5200 and IP4300, if you could provide whatever knowledge you have on these two models it would be most appreciated.


By treesloth on 12/4/2006 7:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am currently looking at the IP5200 and IP4300, if you could provide whatever knowledge you have on these two models it would be most appreciated.


I have an IP5200. I've been nothing but happy. Like a few other posters, I had Epson for a while, but I saw the same decline in quality that others have seen. I thought I was taking a chance with the 5200, since it wasn't Epson, but I've loved it. The print quality on normal paper is quite nice for text and color imaging, and on photo-quaility paper it's jaw-drapping awesome. The consumables are fairly priced, if I recall well, but I honestly don't remember how much I paid the last time I went shopping.

Hmm... apparently DailyTech thinks I might be a robot... I will make sure to only use my robot powers for good... or for awesome!


ink
By Oregonian2 on 11/30/2006 7:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be kind of funny if everybody just bought 3rd party ink. The printer companies would all either go bankrupt or drop their printer products due to massive losses. We'd then have no printers but plenty of ink. Just makes me smile at the irony of it.

My previous printer was by a company that tried to make a little money on the printer and charged low prices for the "ink" as compared to other companies using the same technology (dye-sub). They discontinued their printer business, guess what, customers do NOT want that business model. Customers want printer companies to lose money (except, probably, for those who are employees of 'em who become unemployed as a result).


P.S. - That dye-sub company was ALPS. My MD1300 (which I still have) printed photos that were MUCH MUCH better than any inkjet at the time and do so for about the same printing cost -- despite the reputation of dyesubs being expensive to run.




RE: ink
By PandaBear on 11/30/2006 9:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with it, except that many customer may not buy into it.

I certainly don't want to spend $20 for a 10ml ink cart every time, but they do that so after market filler is not cost efficient anymore (ink is cheap, labor to fill, finding old cart, shipping, and ads cost more).

Let alone all the environmental impact you get when you throw away every cartridge only after 200 pages.


By DrDisconnect on 12/1/2006 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants a reasonable quality printer at a reasonable price with reasonably priced ink. Well, actually we want more, but the above would be considered fair by most.

Unfortunately this model was corrupted by the first printer manufacturer who decided to sell printers for next to nothing but gouged for ink. Once they did this the market was destined to follow. If you produced a printer at a price that truly reflected its cost of manufacture, the average user who buys only on the basis of sticker price will avoid you and as a manufacturer you're screwed.

That leaves us with printers at less than cost and manufacturers who want to still make a profit and have the added burden of the loss then absorbed on the printer. Third parties get a free ride not having to develop and market a printer.

Where is fair in all this? I don't know. But it is an interesting example of market forces producing undersirable side effects.




By angryhippy on 12/1/2006 2:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately this model was corrupted by the first printer manufacturer who decided to sell printers for next to nothing but gouged for ink.

It's all Sony's fault, they started that sales model with Game Consoles. Cheap console, gouge on games. DEATH TO SONY, DEATH TO SONY!

(This is most likely untrue, but is for all the Sony haters that seem to flock to Dailytech like flies to poo) :-)


There is another side to this story.
By ZmaxDP on 12/2/2006 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I think this is good news mixed with bad news. I have had many inkjets from many manufacturers over the years, and every time I've used (or had someone else use) generic ink in them it has pretty much ruined the printers. I only mad that mistake once, probably 10 years ago. My wife did it to our last printer, and a room mate did it to the printer before that. All of them were functioning beautifully before the generic ink was installed, and all of them suffered from greatly reduced quality with, and after the generic inks.

I'm not saying that the idea of generic inks is a bad one. I'd love the competition and price savings. But, as far as I can tell, I've yet to come across a single generic ink product that doesn't damage the printers. So, hopefully this will clear out the market of all the current crappy producers, and open it up for better competition from a quality competitor.





By Nik00117 on 12/4/2006 1:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, Epson printers are fine.


You work for Epson, tell them I'll BS for them if they pay me, 20 bucks a post :) I'll spit out w/e BS they want.


Gotta love DailyTech...
By CascadingDarkness on 11/30/2006 7:30:10 PM , Rating: 3
I love the last line of article. It says it all.

quote:
And printer manufacturers are wondering why the generic ink cartridge business is a booming industry…




Buy printers based on cost of ink
By jon1003 on 11/30/2006 7:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Since printers seem to be pretty much the same as far as basic text and photo printing needs go, I buy a printer based on ink costs. If they sue the aftermarkets out of existence, I will shift to using electronic documents whenever possible. There's no way I'm going to play their extortion game.




ARGH!!!
By AxemanFU on 11/30/2006 6:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me started on inkjet printer cartridges..

I have an Epson C66..and the damn cartridges last about a week or two before fouling or gumming up if you don't use them every day. What a craptacular technology. I think I'll bite the bullet net time and go lazer..at least those are reliable and last a while.




title
By lookouthere on 11/30/2006 6:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Epson takes steps to protect its ink cartridge business in the United States.




I am in the Market
By Kefner on 11/30/2006 7:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am currently looking for a printer, I know to stay away from Epson!




Epson Clamps Down
By rdot on 11/30/2006 10:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
I would not get too exited about this. Epson has thrown up road blocks before for the 3rd party manufactures. They will find a way around this.

Already many of the 24 named by Epson have changed their company names and continue to manufacture and export to USA. So Epson is shutting down companies that have been abandon. Third party supplies will continue to flow for a long time, dispite Epson's efforts to stop them.

Epson's attempt at making more money from the consumers will only backfire and create more demand for low cost cartridges and other types & brands of printers that are not as expensive to operate.

Interesting how our government looks out for the best interest of a Japanese company and screws the US consumer in the process.




Just buy a new printer
By VorpalBlade on 12/1/2006 10:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on your printing needs it cheaper to just buy a new printer when your ink cartridges runs out. I was lead to this approach by a manager at work. He'll buy 2-3 printers when they go on sale for $20-40 dollars. When the ink runs out he'll swap in a new printer and junk the old one. It's certainly cheaper then buying new ink. Not to mention with the deep discounts mfgs give on thier printers this costs them money as more people adopt the strategy.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki