The REAL cost of OEM ink

psandham said:

re: "" ... Epson has taken action that will increase the operating
costs of Maria's printers."

Only if SHE chooses to use EPSON PRINTERS by HER purchasing
decisions. Epson doesn't make that choice for her.

Click to expand...

I’ve had a similar situation with the Ford Fourus I purchased three years ago. I purchased the car of my own free will. No one forced me to buy that particular car. Problem is, the last time I went in for an oil change, the mechanic told me that Ford was now going to enforce the special code written into the car’s (patented) computer system which allows only authorized Ford repair shops to legally work on my car. Ford argues that their superior mechanics will actually benefit me since their mechanics won’t damage me car the way non-Ford mechanics will. Well-and-good, except that now an oil change costs $350. A tune up runs $4,000. New muffler: $1,500. Clearly, I and the other 300,000 people who bought the Ford Fourus in good faith would be more than a little miffed. Now what? Go out and buy a new car? Suck it up and pay whatever Ford asks us to pay for repairs. Yes, I bought my car without anyone twisting my arm, but this sort of ploy is what I was discussing when I said that Epson played a ‘bait-and-switch’ on it’s customers. Perhaps it’s not literally a bate-and-switch ploy, but-and-switch is the closest description of what they’ve done that I could think of. How many customers leave Epson’s ranks forever because of this remains to be seen, but it has left a bad taste in many customers’ mouths. Even if Epson says, “So what? We don’t make that much money on the printers we sell,” I myself been buying about 10,000 sheets of Epson’s HWM a year. I probably would not continue to buy their paper if I switched over to an HP printer instead. And please don’t jump on me for saying this. I’m not threatening Epson. I’m simply thinking out loud about possible business repercussions to Epson’s decision regarding 3rd party cartridges. Maria

Joe,

I see your point, however...

Do I understand you correctly that in your opinion, any 3rd party maker who makes a delivery system for 3rd party ink into any OEM printer, is violating patents? How about the 3rd party ink itself? Is that violating anything in your opinion?

I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from and what the main beef is with you when it comes to 3rd party supplies.

By using 3rd party paper, you are taking profits from the printer maker. As long as no patents are infringed in either the ink composition or the delivery system, I fail to see how that is any different than using 3rd party ink.

Your printer was designed to be used with OEM papers ONLY. The longevity claims by the OEMs are only for OEM paper. Are you not worried about the quality of your prints to your customers, when they expect the prints to last and last? (I hope you see my point)

I am not trying to argue any point really. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

handymus

It's not really a bait and switch, because neither Ford nor Epson sold you the car or printer based on their open support of indendant garages, and support of 3rd party ink.

I do understand that their decision to enforce the patents they hold did impact you, but I don't believe you can't blame them for wishing to protect their own interests when it was your decision to purchase their printers with the intent to use 3rd party ink. Here's a similar scenario that might help you understand the points I've been trying to make;

You sell pictures, as a profession now, it's the way you put food on your table and keep a roof over your head. Currently there is nothing that prohibits your customers from purchasing a single photo from you and then scanning it and printing duplicates on their own. Now, let's say you purchase a photoshop plug-in that allows you to electronically watermark the image such that it isn't visible to the human eye, but will show up if the picture is scanned or copied.

You're customers now call you up complaining because your actions have now forced them to purchase more photos from you since they can no longer circumvent your copyright, and duplicate your photos on their own. Do you stop using the watermarking software and accept the losses or do you write off these customers who have been stealing from you all these years?

you're welcome, it's off that this came just a few days before this thread errupted.

On a side note, Wilhelm called and asked for permission to put it up on his site, you'll find it there: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ (3rd column, about a page down).
--
Webmaster and Tech Support guy at inkjetart.com and thebairs.net

Handymuss said:

Joe,

I see your point, however...

Do I understand you correctly that in your opinion, any 3rd party
maker who makes a delivery system for 3rd party ink into any OEM
printer, is violating patents? How about the 3rd party ink itself?
Is that violating anything in your opinion?
I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from and
what the main beef is with you when it comes to 3rd party supplies.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. To my knowledge only Lexmark for laser printers and Epson for ink jets has claimed patent infringement against 3rd party manufacturers who produce cartridges or CIS systems that are chipped and allow access to proprietary software from Epson and Lexmark.

3rd party ink only manufacturers do not violate any patents. 3rd party ink only manufacturers who produce ink for Epson chipped printers and toner for Lexmark chipped laser printers may not be violating a patent directly, but their intentions are questionable since they know in order for the ink to get into the printer Epsons and Lexmarks patents must be violated. It's similar to a store that carries drug paraphanalia, the items they sell aren't illegal, but their use typically requires breaking the law.

Handymuss said:

By using 3rd party paper, you are taking profits from the printer
maker. As long as no patents are infringed in either the ink
composition or the delivery system, I fail to see how that is any
different than using 3rd party ink.

Your printer was designed to be used with OEM papers ONLY. The
longevity claims by the OEMs are only for OEM paper. Are you not
worried about the quality of your prints to your customers, when they
expect the prints to last and last? (I hope you see my point)

Click to expand...

I do see your point, and I addressed some of these points in a different post. I think we would all agree that if OEM ink was priced the same as 3rd party ink everyone would use OEM ink because it is better, tested for longevity and more color consistent than 3rd party ink.

For standard matte and glossy prints, I do use Epson. I also use some of Epsons Fine art papers and rag, but most professional printers would agree that Epson fine art papers are not always the best, and can have very different qualities from other paper makers. In some cases Epson doesn't produce the type of paper I want to use, but the non-Epson fine arts papers I use are tested with Epson K3 inks so there is data regarding longevity. Before I print anything I fully disclose to the person I'm printing for when I suggest non-Epson paper, tell them the cost difference and longevity information.

I hope I answered your questions fully.

....you'd have a choice of 110ml or OMG!!... the 220ml carts! ...not
to mention all the other fine features of a PRO printer. The 3800 is
whacked at the knees by Epson to cut costs. Get over it. You pay
more for the small carts. Stop whining.

The "PRO" 4800 or 4880 you should have bought.

=================

that you'll use about $65US when you change from photo to matte black each time! The 3800 cost is around 5 bucks.

--
pjs
'the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket'
pjs©1972

Where did you get $65? My cost is about $40.

Joe

psandham said:

that you'll use about $65US when you change from photo to matte black
each time! The 3800 cost is around 5 bucks.

--
pjs
'the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket'
pjs©1972

Click to expand...

mcmm said:

Epson 3800 ..... 9 carts, at 80 ml each.

At a price of $60 per cart, this translates into 75 cents per mL of ink.

It doesn't sound so bad, right ?

But here's the kicker ..... this means .... K3 ink costs .... $3000
per gallon.

Add 14% tax, and you get ..... $3420 per gallon.

Now, is this highway robbery, or am I being overly sensitive ?

mcmm

Click to expand...

I have read such equations before but this idea of getting to a Gallon price is about as logical as it would be to convert to the price for a Metric TON.
Perhaps it may help a "lonely" person for something to communicate about.
--
Vernon...

psandham said:

that you'll use about $65US when you change from photo to matte black
each time! The 3800 cost is around 5 bucks.

Click to expand...

...that I don't swap blacks and print only on matte paper and canvas.
True, swapping to glossy Black on a 4800 or 4880 is costly tho. The
Epson 4000 owners are lucky. Why Epson added that stupid Light-light
black was really dumb versus keeping the two main blacks on the 4800
and 4880.

==============