Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Printer prices absurd

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 3:22:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
store for $100. I know
they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
this printer is basically the same as the
RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
itself.

Sherwin D.

More about : printer prices absurd

February 14, 2005 3:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have just bought one in the UK, but its just being discontinued as is the
RX600
looks like thre is a new RX620 replacing the RX600 but nothing replacing the
RX500.
Both have just been reduced heavily in pricing indicating end of life.

"sherwindu" <sherwindu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:421043AE.E6DE10D1@comcast.net...
>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
> ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
> store for $100. I know
> they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
> ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
> this printer is basically the same as the
> RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
> itself.
>
> Sherwin D.
>
February 14, 2005 6:13:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net> wrote:

>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>store for $100. I know
>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>ridiculous
<snip>

We are very grateful to all the gullible fools who purchase original cartridges.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 6:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have tried several different third-party cartridge manufacturers and none
of them have ever performed as well as the Epson cartridges. All of the
faulty cartridges were replaced, free of charge, with equally faulty
cartridges. I have never, since then, used anything but factory Epson
cartridges in my Epson printers.

Yes, cartridge costs are outrageous, no matter what printer you have. I
think we all would like to see a reduction in retail pricing of about 30% to
40%.

"pete" <pete@maildox.com> wrote in message
news:0vf111dckqdi537buespfqipq7djdk5p48@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> >I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
> >ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
> >store for $100. I know
> >they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
> >ridiculous
> <snip>
>
> We are very grateful to all the gullible fools who purchase original
cartridges.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:55:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>store for $100. I know
>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
>this printer is basically the same as the
>RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
>itself.
>
Printer prices ar3e ridiculous. They are far too low. I would far
rather pay more for the printer, get good support and warranty and pay
less for the ink.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>store for $100. I know
>>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
>>this printer is basically the same as the
>>RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
>>itself.
>>
>
> Printer prices ar3e ridiculous. They are far too low. I would far
> rather pay more for the printer, get good support and warranty and pay
> less for the ink.
>

The 4 makers - if you count Lexmark ;-) - are fighting for a larger
share of the "printer pie" by undercutting the competition. Obviously,
the company with the most money available to bankroll the "The Great
Printer Give-away" hopes to be the "Microsoft" of the printer business.
At least that's how I look at this intensely interesting "paint ball"
battle.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:01:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross revenue
on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less conservative.

Hecate wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>store for $100. I know
>>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
>>this printer is basically the same as the
>>RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
>>itself.
>>
>>
>>
>Printer prices ar3e ridiculous. They are far too low. I would far
>rather pay more for the printer, get good support and warranty and pay
>less for the ink.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:01:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
> pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
> still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross revenue
> on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less conservative.

I used to be that way when I got my first printer, a clunky Epson.
I conserved ink due to the cost, permitting myself just 1 or 2 color
Epson carts per year. Then I discovered generic carts (oh, brave man,
I thought!). A step in the right direction, they were considerably
cheaper. Later, I got the urge to refill them myself (oh kinky!), first
with small kit bottles and now the larger 8 oz bulk bottles (oh
liberated man!). Now I use ink like it was Gatorade.

With tons of affordable ink and with the prices of printers going down,
life couldn't be rosier. . . er, more magenta.

For those still conserving ink, feeling a little cyan right now...

-Taliesyn
______________________________________________________________
For the record, Taliesyn is not affiliated with any suppliers of
consumables.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 8:30:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The majority of consumers are almost completely
clueless in this respect, and many of them will
end up buying the cheapest printers with the most
expensive (per ml) cartridges.

There are some business class inkjets such as the
HP1200 with somewhat cheaper ink.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WueQd.168$DC6.10@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
> pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
> still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross revenue
> on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less conservative.
>
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:08:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

People who have low print volumes, or who have had poor previous
experiences with 3rd party inks may be making a better choice for
themselves. I'm not sure they should be judged harshly.

And, as you said, printer prices would be much, much higher. They may
well be again soon, as legislation comes to be regarding refillability
of ink cartridges.

Personally, I would like to see the business model return to more costly
printers and less expensive inks, because it provides an environmentally
better incentive to people maintaining and keeping their printers longer.

Art

pete wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>store for $100. I know
>>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>ridiculous
>
> <snip>
>
> We are very grateful to all the gullible fools who purchase original cartridges.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

They're not that hard to fill once you figure out how. Harder than
cartridges with sponges, but then they hold more ink in the same space
than a sponge filled one would.

You need two syringes (one in the outlet port) and a way to seal the
other syringe to the smaller of the fill holes so you can push ink into
the cartridge and have the air blow through it and out into the outlet
port syringe (with no plunger).
Clog-Busting Plastic Needle
(http://www.ink-refills-ink.com/1accessories.php) might help, or use
silicone glue to make a flexible seal.
To then seal the resulting hole (cut plastic away with sharp x-acto)
hot glue can be used or for th 4xx cartridges Stratitec now makes a
rubber plug: 16 reusable Extra Large Plugs
(https://stratitecstrat.secure.powweb.com/inkrefill/supp...)

As a general tip for hot glue sealing of anything, it can help if you
get a piece of smooth flat metal and spray a little Prestone Silicone
Lube (auto parts store) on one side. That will work to flatten &
smooth the hot glue, and yet will come off easily.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:28:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

People can (and do) think what they may about Epson's business approach.
I think it is somewhat unfair that they design their cartridges now to
make them very difficult to refill properly, and also made it very
difficult to make a compatible cartridges that works correctly with
their newer printers. They also own rights on some very unique ink
formulations.

Simply put, the newer Epson cartridges and hence their printers, are
designed to work together. Due to the quantity Epson makes of both, it
is cost effective to make these complex systems that tend to sabotage
3rd party brand cartridges. It is not the same deal it used to be with
Epson cartridges which were very low tech in design, and inks were
simple dye types.

Yes, inks are costly, yes, they are much more than they are worth, but
as some others have mentioned, you can't really expect the printer, the
warranty and the inks for free, or nearly so. And, I don't think it is
ethical to ruin your printer using unsanctioned inks or cartridges and
then expect the manufacturer to cover the warranty.

If you want an Epson printer today, expect to pay for Epson ink
cartridges as part of the cost of running the printer, or be willing to
risk 3rd party inks and cartridges, but accept responsibility for
failures to the print heads or poor print results. You may indeed hit a
good compatible, and save big bucks, but you also may hit some dogs and
that is your risk to take.

Art





Kevin wrote:

> I have tried several different third-party cartridge manufacturers and none
> of them have ever performed as well as the Epson cartridges. All of the
> faulty cartridges were replaced, free of charge, with equally faulty
> cartridges. I have never, since then, used anything but factory Epson
> cartridges in my Epson printers.
>
> Yes, cartridge costs are outrageous, no matter what printer you have. I
> think we all would like to see a reduction in retail pricing of about 30% to
> 40%.
>
> "pete" <pete@maildox.com> wrote in message
> news:0vf111dckqdi537buespfqipq7djdk5p48@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>>store for $100. I know
>>>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>>ridiculous
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>We are very grateful to all the gullible fools who purchase original
>
> cartridges.
>
>
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:47:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Why not consider lowering the ink prices as a way to win over customers.
If they advertised and guaranteed ink prices for, say, at least 2
years, that might work...

Art

Taliesyn wrote:

> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:22:38 -0600, sherwindu <sherwindu@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>> ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>> store for $100. I know
>>> they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>> ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
>>> this printer is basically the same as the
>>> RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
>>> itself.
>>>
>>
>> Printer prices ar3e ridiculous. They are far too low. I would far
>> rather pay more for the printer, get good support and warranty and pay
>> less for the ink.
>>
>
> The 4 makers - if you count Lexmark ;-) - are fighting for a larger
> share of the "printer pie" by undercutting the competition. Obviously,
> the company with the most money available to bankroll the "The Great
> Printer Give-away" hopes to be the "Microsoft" of the printer business.
> At least that's how I look at this intensely interesting "paint ball"
> battle.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:47:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Why not consider lowering the ink prices as a way to win over customers.
> If they advertised and guaranteed ink prices for, say, at least 2
> years, that might work...
>


The ink costs them very little and they make a bundle selling it. It is
their cash cow. The printers are the beautiful toys they design to
entice us into buying their printers, which will of course force some of
us to buy their money making cartridges (money-making for them :-).
Remember, they only have to sell two complete sets of Canon cartridges
to cover the cost of a Canon iP4000 in Canada. They can easily keep
lowering the printer prices.

And lowering the cost of a Canon cartridge by $5 would still be a
joke because they'd cost about $15 instead of $20 CDN each. I can
refill a complete set for about $5. Unless Canon cartridges can be
obtained for about $20 to $25 for a set of four or five, I'm not
interested.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Neither the current Epson inks (particularly the Durabrite and
Ultrachrome), or cartridges tend to be easily replaced and made to work
well with the more recent Epson printers.

They are not your father's (or yours) SC740... ;-)

Besides, I think you have an ink addiction, and should be cut off cold
turkey ;-) Not green with envy.

Art

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
>> pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
>> still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross
>> revenue on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less
>> conservative.
>
>
> I used to be that way when I got my first printer, a clunky Epson.
> I conserved ink due to the cost, permitting myself just 1 or 2 color
> Epson carts per year. Then I discovered generic carts (oh, brave man,
> I thought!). A step in the right direction, they were considerably
> cheaper. Later, I got the urge to refill them myself (oh kinky!), first
> with small kit bottles and now the larger 8 oz bulk bottles (oh
> liberated man!). Now I use ink like it was Gatorade.
>
> With tons of affordable ink and with the prices of printers going down,
> life couldn't be rosier. . . er, more magenta.
>
> For those still conserving ink, feeling a little cyan right now...
>
> -Taliesyn
> ______________________________________________________________
> For the record, Taliesyn is not affiliated with any suppliers of
> consumables.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:52:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Neither the current Epson inks (particularly the Durabrite and
> Ultrachrome), or cartridges tend to be easily replaced and made to work
> well with the more recent Epson printers.

My first thought is that it's going to hurt Epson's share of the market
in the long run. There are many of us who before buying investigate the
ease at which printer cartridges can be refilled. Unless, of course,
cartridge costs mean nothing to them.

> They are not your father's (or yours) SC740... ;-)

No, they're not. Interestingly, my first inkjet, the Epson 500 is
still running faithfully for my father (black cartridge only, the
color is installed but it's been empty since 1997 or 98?). He only
uses it once or twice a week at most to print a sheet or two. I refill
it for him and it rarely seems to clog.

> Besides, I think you have an ink addiction, and should be cut off cold
> turkey ;-) Not green with envy.
>

Yeah, I know. After refilling I like to wear the colorful stains on
my fingers as a badge of honor. Gloves? . . . bah, humbug. A little
color is good for you. Hey, women go out of their way to paint their
nails...

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:CVlQd.407$%y.292@clgrps12...

[..]

> Yes, inks are costly, yes, they are much more than they are worth, but as
> some others have mentioned, you can't really expect the printer, the
> warranty and the inks for free, or nearly so. And, I don't think it is
> ethical to ruin your printer using unsanctioned inks or cartridges and
> then expect the manufacturer to cover the warranty.

Many don't think its ethical for Epson et.al. to charge such extortionate
amounts for ink, and most consumers aren't going to let minor details like
ethics affect what they do with their printers.

Let me give you an example:
Epson R200 - £70.00 (with set of 6 inks)
Set of 6 Epson inks for R200 (@ 10.99 each) - £65.94
Set of 6 expensive compatible inks for R200 - £18.12
Set of 6 cheap compatible inks - £6.89 (from
http://www.blankdiscshop.co.uk)

*Why* would I want to buy Epson inks when I can get a complete set for less
then the price of ONE Epson cart? Granted the print quality and lifespan of
the prints might be slightly better, but do you think people who buy what is
effectively the bottom of the range printer are _that_ bothered by 100%
prefect prints that might last a few years more??

If the compatible's ruin the head, so what? After ONE set of compatible's
have been used - I've already saved the cost of a new printer! If it fails
during the warranty, so much the better as I get a new printer for free too.


> If you want an Epson printer today, expect to pay for Epson ink cartridges
> as part of the cost of running the printer, or be willing to risk 3rd
> party inks and cartridges, but accept responsibility for failures to the
> print heads or poor print results.

You do that if such it your want. Most of us realise a good thing when we
see it and will continue to exploit manufacturers for as long as they try to
exploit us.

How much longer do you think it will be before somebody (probably Lexmark)
goes bust because their marketing model fails? - Probably a lot sooner than
you might first think.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For BCI-6 inks I did a test of some major aftermarket brands here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&m...

Found out some interestng things in the process.

I have an i960 (got a $50 rebate on it, still wish I'd waited for the
Pixma i5000) and refill my MIS blanks with www.rjettek.com's OCP inks
presently, except for black for which I use WJ1109 Dark Black from
Image Specialists. MIS also has blanks for Epson printers I think
(www.inksupply.com).

I'd have to argue that the HP 56/57 are easier to fill than even the
BCI-3/6 cartridges, but as a fan of pens that let you view your ink
level I do like the transparent design.
February 16, 2005 5:15:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

almost all product prices drop (some substantially) when the manufacturer
brings out a new model. Have you ever purchased shoes, a suit, or shirts at
25 to 50% off retail during a sale? Stores do this to boost sales with loss
leaders, clear merchandise to replace it with a new season's stock, or to
clear the shelves for inventory reduction before tax time. For printers it
is often wise to buy at the end of a model in the marketplace unless there
is such a great improvement in technology or functionality that you must
have the latest model. One such change was with the Epson durabrite inks
for archival printing. Since I didn't need arachival printing I stopped
using a reasonably good Epson printer that presented some difficulty in
refilling and opted for a Canon i960 which prints fabulous color photos and
has the easiest cartridges to refill. Costco glossy photo paper and MIS
inks provide great photo printing at extremely low cost. Just don't leave
them out in the sun as they will fade (like other dye based inks). There
are some high quality refill inks and aftermarket cartridges - you just have
to follow newsgroups and internet postings long enough to find out which
ones to use.


"sherwindu" <sherwindu@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:421043AE.E6DE10D1@comcast.net...
>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
> ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
> store for $100. I know
> they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
> ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
> this printer is basically the same as the
> RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
> itself.
>
> Sherwin D.
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:15:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

> almost all product prices drop (some substantially) when the manufacturer
> brings out a new model. Have you ever purchased shoes, a suit, or shirts at
> 25 to 50% off retail during a sale? Stores do this to boost sales with loss
> leaders, clear merchandise to replace it with a new season's stock, or to
> clear the shelves for inventory reduction before tax time. For printers it
> is often wise to buy at the end of a model in the marketplace unless there
> is such a great improvement in technology or functionality that you must
> have the latest model. One such change was with the Epson durabrite inks
> for archival printing. Since I didn't need arachival printing I stopped
> using a reasonably good Epson printer that presented some difficulty in
> refilling and opted for a Canon i960 which prints fabulous color photos and
> has the easiest cartridges to refill. Costco glossy photo paper and MIS
> inks provide great photo printing at extremely low cost. Just don't leave
> them out in the sun as they will fade (like other dye based inks). There
> are some high quality refill inks and aftermarket cartridges - you just have
> to follow newsgroups and internet postings long enough to find out which
> ones to use.
>

Absolutely correct about end of line purchases - the i960 can be had in
for $149 CDN right now (I forget which store).

And yes, Canon cartridges are the easiest to fill. I've actually filled
all four major brands and can vouch for that. I've always called Canon
cartridges the "sexiest of the bunch", because of their nifty design and
looks.

Costco Glossy Photo Paper is indeed thick and wonderful, and finger
friendly, even fresh out of the printer! Now if they would only also
sell 4x6 inch precut sheets.....

And absolutely right about quality refill inks and aftermarket cartridge
being out there. Experimenting with beginner refill kits is also a good
way to try out different inks. Hobbi-Colors sells kits along with very
nice blank cartridges with a large plastic screw fill hole. These are
very well made. I have set on standby that I need to test more to see if
I'd like to go their route some day.

A pleasure to comment on someone with some common sense for a change ;-)


>
> "sherwindu" <sherwindu@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:421043AE.E6DE10D1@comcast.net...
>
>>I did quite a bit of shopping before buying an Epson RX-500 one year
>>ago, for about $250. Now I am seeing it advertised in my area at a
>>store for $100. I know
>>they sell printers just to get us to buy ink, but this seems
>>ridiculous. It's true they have recently introduced the RX-600, but
>>this printer is basically the same as the
>>RX-500 with a gimmicky viewer window for scanned images on the printer
>>itself.
>>
>> Sherwin D.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:19:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:01:58 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
>pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
>still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross revenue
>on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less conservative.
>
That seems a reasonable trade off to me. And I think they'd gain
because I would definitely use their inks (except where I need a CIS
because of the volume of prints).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would

> pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
> still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross
revenue
> on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less
conservative.

I'm not sure they'd get the same revenue (what they need) with
that formula of price redistribution. Would you accept having
the printer perhaps double or triple in price to get the ink
down to the price you want?

Mike
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:13:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Epson used to have a 2 year warranty on their inkjet printers, it then
went to one year, and HP, for at least a period of time, went to 3 months.

As you suggest, something's got to give. It's either going to be
printer prices raising, or warranties being further cut, or, no warranty
offered on 3rd party ink failures.

Lexmark will not go bankrupt, they have a larger base than just inkjet
printers, but they may leave the inkjet market at some point, although
as I understand it they have one of the more difficult cartridges to
successfully refill.

Art


Harvey wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:CVlQd.407$%y.292@clgrps12...
>
> [..]
>
>
>>Yes, inks are costly, yes, they are much more than they are worth, but as
>>some others have mentioned, you can't really expect the printer, the
>>warranty and the inks for free, or nearly so. And, I don't think it is
>>ethical to ruin your printer using unsanctioned inks or cartridges and
>>then expect the manufacturer to cover the warranty.
>
>
> Many don't think its ethical for Epson et.al. to charge such extortionate
> amounts for ink, and most consumers aren't going to let minor details like
> ethics affect what they do with their printers.
>
> Let me give you an example:
> Epson R200 - £70.00 (with set of 6 inks)
> Set of 6 Epson inks for R200 (@ 10.99 each) - £65.94
> Set of 6 expensive compatible inks for R200 - £18.12
> Set of 6 cheap compatible inks - £6.89 (from
> http://www.blankdiscshop.co.uk)
>
> *Why* would I want to buy Epson inks when I can get a complete set for less
> then the price of ONE Epson cart? Granted the print quality and lifespan of
> the prints might be slightly better, but do you think people who buy what is
> effectively the bottom of the range printer are _that_ bothered by 100%
> prefect prints that might last a few years more??
>
> If the compatible's ruin the head, so what? After ONE set of compatible's
> have been used - I've already saved the cost of a new printer! If it fails
> during the warranty, so much the better as I get a new printer for free too.
>
>
>
>>If you want an Epson printer today, expect to pay for Epson ink cartridges
>>as part of the cost of running the printer, or be willing to risk 3rd
>>party inks and cartridges, but accept responsibility for failures to the
>>print heads or poor print results.
>
>
> You do that if such it your want. Most of us realise a good thing when we
> see it and will continue to exploit manufacturers for as long as they try to
> exploit us.
>
> How much longer do you think it will be before somebody (probably Lexmark)
> goes bust because their marketing model fails? - Probably a lot sooner than
> you might first think.
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There is a price point where people will be willing to pay for a
prepared and guaranteed ink cartridge, regardless of what refill inks
cost. Refilling is a bit of a hassle, can be messy and can cause the
printer problems. The ink cartridges, in terms of manufacturing,
design, packaging, shipping, etc isn't free, and the retailer is also
making a good cut on it, so it's not like Canon, or whomever is
pocketing 100% pure profit on ink cartridges. My first Epson Stylus
Color cost $1000 CAN, monster size ink cartridges were about $35 as I
recall for the color, and less for the black.

As I stated, the EU may force the manufacturers t rethink the business
model eventually, when refill ink cartridge will be required.

Art



Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Why not consider lowering the ink prices as a way to win over
>> customers. If they advertised and guaranteed ink prices for, say, at
>> least 2 years, that might work...
>>
>
>
> The ink costs them very little and they make a bundle selling it. It is
> their cash cow. The printers are the beautiful toys they design to
> entice us into buying their printers, which will of course force some of
> us to buy their money making cartridges (money-making for them :-).
> Remember, they only have to sell two complete sets of Canon cartridges
> to cover the cost of a Canon iP4000 in Canada. They can easily keep
> lowering the printer prices.
>
> And lowering the cost of a Canon cartridge by $5 would still be a
> joke because they'd cost about $15 instead of $20 CDN each. I can
> refill a complete set for about $5. Unless Canon cartridges can be
> obtained for about $20 to $25 for a set of four or five, I'm not
> interested.
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:24:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I think Epson is playing their trump card as being the fade resistance
and waterproof nature of those inks. Their image quality is also not to
shabby. They have directed their target market as being fine artists
and photographers who want permanence, a "ink and paper system" and a
wide range of sanctioned papers with fairly predictable results.

Art

Taliesyn wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Neither the current Epson inks (particularly the Durabrite and
>> Ultrachrome), or cartridges tend to be easily replaced and made to
>> work well with the more recent Epson printers.
>
>
> My first thought is that it's going to hurt Epson's share of the market
> in the long run. There are many of us who before buying investigate the
> ease at which printer cartridges can be refilled. Unless, of course,
> cartridge costs mean nothing to them.
>
>> They are not your father's (or yours) SC740... ;-)
>
>
> No, they're not. Interestingly, my first inkjet, the Epson 500 is
> still running faithfully for my father (black cartridge only, the
> color is installed but it's been empty since 1997 or 98?). He only
> uses it once or twice a week at most to print a sheet or two. I refill
> it for him and it rarely seems to clog.
>
>> Besides, I think you have an ink addiction, and should be cut off cold
>> turkey ;-) Not green with envy.
>>
>
> Yeah, I know. After refilling I like to wear the colorful stains on
> my fingers as a badge of honor. Gloves? . . . bah, humbug. A little
> color is good for you. Hey, women go out of their way to paint their
> nails...
>
> -Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:37:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> I am sure this is what they need but not what the greedy bastards
want.

Are you referring to the printer makers who want to support
the spouses and families of their employees as being the greedy
bastards, or are you referring to those who want the printer
makers to make hobbiest products for as close to free as possible?

I'm a bit confused about which bastards you referred to.

Mike


>

> >I'm not sure they'd get the same revenue (what they need) with
> >that formula of price redistribution. Would you accept having
> >the printer perhaps double or triple in price to get the ink
> >down to the price you want?
> >
> >Mike
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:51:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I do not think Lexmark will do the world a favor.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Epson used to have a 2 year warranty on their inkjet printers, it then
> went to one year, and HP, for at least a period of time, went to 3
> months.
>
> As you suggest, something's got to give. It's either going to be
> printer prices raising, or warranties being further cut, or, no
> warranty offered on 3rd party ink failures.
>
> Lexmark will not go bankrupt, they have a larger base than just inkjet
> printers, but they may leave the inkjet market at some point, although
> as I understand it they have one of the more difficult cartridges to
> successfully refill.
>
> Art
>
>
> Harvey wrote:
>
>> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:CVlQd.407$%y.292@clgrps12...
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>> Yes, inks are costly, yes, they are much more than they are worth,
>>> but as some others have mentioned, you can't really expect the
>>> printer, the warranty and the inks for free, or nearly so. And, I
>>> don't think it is ethical to ruin your printer using unsanctioned
>>> inks or cartridges and then expect the manufacturer to cover the
>>> warranty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many don't think its ethical for Epson et.al. to charge such
>> extortionate amounts for ink, and most consumers aren't going to let
>> minor details like ethics affect what they do with their printers.
>>
>> Let me give you an example:
>> Epson R200 - £70.00 (with set of 6 inks)
>> Set of 6 Epson inks for R200 (@ 10.99 each) - £65.94
>> Set of 6 expensive compatible inks for R200 - £18.12
>> Set of 6 cheap compatible inks - £6.89 (from
>> http://www.blankdiscshop.co.uk)
>>
>> *Why* would I want to buy Epson inks when I can get a complete set
>> for less then the price of ONE Epson cart? Granted the print quality
>> and lifespan of the prints might be slightly better, but do you think
>> people who buy what is effectively the bottom of the range printer
>> are _that_ bothered by 100% prefect prints that might last a few
>> years more??
>>
>> If the compatible's ruin the head, so what? After ONE set of
>> compatible's have been used - I've already saved the cost of a new
>> printer! If it fails during the warranty, so much the better as I get
>> a new printer for free too.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you want an Epson printer today, expect to pay for Epson ink
>>> cartridges as part of the cost of running the printer, or be willing
>>> to risk 3rd party inks and cartridges, but accept responsibility for
>>> failures to the print heads or poor print results.
>>
>>
>>
>> You do that if such it your want. Most of us realise a good thing
>> when we see it and will continue to exploit manufacturers for as long
>> as they try to exploit us.
>>
>> How much longer do you think it will be before somebody (probably
>> Lexmark) goes bust because their marketing model fails? - Probably a
>> lot sooner than you might first think.
>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ink for the BCI6 Canon should be $2.50 per cartridge and the package
should be for 3 carts. That is 7.50 per color. The IP4000 would then
cost $37.00 unless they made a kit for $29.00. One pack with all of
them. They would save on packaging and we would get a fair price. It
would not pay for the hassle of refilling and worring about ink clogs.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> There is a price point where people will be willing to pay for a
> prepared and guaranteed ink cartridge, regardless of what refill inks
> cost. Refilling is a bit of a hassle, can be messy and can cause the
> printer problems. The ink cartridges, in terms of manufacturing,
> design, packaging, shipping, etc isn't free, and the retailer is also
> making a good cut on it, so it's not like Canon, or whomever is
> pocketing 100% pure profit on ink cartridges. My first Epson Stylus
> Color cost $1000 CAN, monster size ink cartridges were about $35 as I
> recall for the color, and less for the black.
>
> As I stated, the EU may force the manufacturers t rethink the business
> model eventually, when refill ink cartridge will be required.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Why not consider lowering the ink prices as a way to win over
>>> customers. If they advertised and guaranteed ink prices for, say,
>>> at least 2 years, that might work...
>>>
>>
>>
>> The ink costs them very little and they make a bundle selling it. It is
>> their cash cow. The printers are the beautiful toys they design to
>> entice us into buying their printers, which will of course force some of
>> us to buy their money making cartridges (money-making for them :-).
>> Remember, they only have to sell two complete sets of Canon cartridges
>> to cover the cost of a Canon iP4000 in Canada. They can easily keep
>> lowering the printer prices.
>>
>> And lowering the cost of a Canon cartridge by $5 would still be a
>> joke because they'd cost about $15 instead of $20 CDN each. I can
>> refill a complete set for about $5. Unless Canon cartridges can be
>> obtained for about $20 to $25 for a set of four or five, I'm not
>> interested.
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:26:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Double is a little bit of a stretch. Triple is out of the question. In
the case of an i9900 that would make it $850 to around $1500.

Anoni Moose wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
>>still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross
>>
>>
>revenue
>
>
>>on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less
>>
>>
>conservative.
>
>I'm not sure they'd get the same revenue (what they need) with
>that formula of price redistribution. Would you accept having
>the printer perhaps double or triple in price to get the ink
>down to the price you want?
>
>Mike
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:31:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am sure this is what they need but not what the greedy bastards want.

Anoni Moose wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>How much more for the printer and how much less for the ink? I would
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>pay 20% more for the printer to get 40% less for the ink. They will
>>still make a profit on both. They will probably make more gross
>>
>>
>revenue
>
>
>>on the ink because people would print a lot more and be less
>>
>>
>conservative.
>
>I'm not sure they'd get the same revenue (what they need) with
>that formula of price redistribution. Would you accept having
>the printer perhaps double or triple in price to get the ink
>down to the price you want?
>
>Mike
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:31:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'll take an HP LaserJet over any Lexmark. I've worked on both and
there's nothing wrong with Lexmark, but there's much more right about
HP.
February 17, 2005 3:41:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:51:02 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I do not think Lexmark will do the world a favor.
>

Lexmark happens to make some excellent rugged and reliable laser
printers....

otoh, if their inkjet division disappeared I doubt any enduser on the
planet would shed a tear...
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 4:44:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The Corporate bastards like in many companies.

Anoni Moose wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>I am sure this is what they need but not what the greedy bastards
>>
>>
>want.
>
>Are you referring to the printer makers who want to support
>the spouses and families of their employees as being the greedy
>bastards, or are you referring to those who want the printer
>makers to make hobbiest products for as close to free as possible?
>
>I'm a bit confused about which bastards you referred to.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I'm not sure they'd get the same revenue (what they need) with
>>>that formula of price redistribution. Would you accept having
>>>the printer perhaps double or triple in price to get the ink
>>>down to the price you want?
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:17:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

No one is forcing you to buy an inkjet.
If you don't like the prices, by all means,
don't buy them.

That will teach them a lesson!!

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bGSQd.733$OU1.158@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> The Corporate bastards like in many companies.
>
>
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:10:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

They will only learn a lesson if there were millions of me.

John Doe wrote:

>No one is forcing you to buy an inkjet.
>If you don't like the prices, by all means,
>don't buy them.
>
>That will teach them a lesson!!
>
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bGSQd.733$OU1.158@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>The Corporate bastards like in many companies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
February 18, 2005 11:06:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 16 Feb 2005 16:37:44 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>> I am sure this is what they need but not what the greedy bastards
>want.
>
>Are you referring to the printer makers who want to support
>the spouses and families of their employees as being the greedy
>bastards, or are you referring to those who want the printer
>makers to make hobbiest products for as close to free as possible?
>
>I'm a bit confused about which bastards you referred to.
>

He has the stupid habit of top posting, so one doesn't know which bit of the
discussion he is addressing.
I killfiled him a while ago.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:23:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Top posting is better. If you have been following a discussion you do
not have to wade thru stuff you read 10 times. Everyone should use it
as the default.

pete wrote:

>On 16 Feb 2005 16:37:44 -0800, "Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am sure this is what they need but not what the greedy bastards
>>>
>>>
>>want.
>>
>>Are you referring to the printer makers who want to support
>>the spouses and families of their employees as being the greedy
>>bastards, or are you referring to those who want the printer
>>makers to make hobbiest products for as close to free as possible?
>>
>>I'm a bit confused about which bastards you referred to.
>>
>>
>>
>
>He has the stupid habit of top posting, so one doesn't know which bit of the
>discussion he is addressing.
>I killfiled him a while ago.
>
>
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 9:42:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zwpRd.1098$DC6.900@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Top posting is better. If you have been following a discussion you do not
> have to wade thru stuff you read 10 times. Everyone should use it as the
> default.
>

You can always bottom post and remove the irrelevant information from the
post you are quoting.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 4:44:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Top posting is better. If you have been following a discussion you do
> not have to wade thru stuff you read 10 times. Everyone should use it
> as the default.

Trimming is even better than bottom or top posting.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 4:00:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

That takes more time, effort, and is less efficient use of your time.

PC Medic wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:zwpRd.1098$DC6.900@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Top posting is better. If you have been following a discussion you do not
>>have to wade thru stuff you read 10 times. Everyone should use it as the
>>default.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You can always bottom post and remove the irrelevant information from the
>post you are quoting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 3:44:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

But a more efficient use of the readers' time.
!