Re: Epson Ink carts
There are apparently points of law at issue re inkjet carts an ordinary
citizen would fail to understand. For instance, although I can conceive
of outlawing re-using the left-over Epson ink from Epson cartridges, I
have trouble following the concept by which I am forbidden to put
something different in a machine I've bought and paid for and kept on my
That would be like saying I couldn't put a 3rd party tyewriter ribbon in
my Smith Corona... Or make my own hubcaps for my Alfa Romeo.
My current inkjet printer is a relic from the distant past -- an Epson
1160 -- which has done good service for years with 3rd party cartridges at
$3 & $4 apiece. For what it's worth, I tested them against the
manufacturer's originals in every way I could think of (light fastness,
nozzle clogging, opacity, etc.) and found them at least equal, though I
daresay the more complicated recent machines might not fare so well with
3rd party inks -- tho then again they might.
In any event, with the money I saved I'm planning to buy a small island in
the Pacific -- or maybe hire an expert to make negatives for me... But I
suppose that the more advanced machines have more ways to hang up... tho
my experience is that some folks are more adventurous in these respects
But I'd also say, Bob: Epson's "market share" does not fit the definition
of "monopoly" as I understand it... and I expect new technology to come
along any minute anyway & re-liberate us.
PS: Speaking of inkjet printers; I noticed in the Photo Review auction
catalog that probably half the prints were listed as "Archival inkjet," or
"archival pigment prints", or like that. A few were alternative processes,
and a larger few were "silver prints", but what struck me most of all was
that the "estimated" auction price for inkjet prints seemed to be just
what it would have been in traditional silver gelatin.
There was meanwhile one print listed as -- are you ready ?-- "GLICEE" --
tho I don't remember if it was expected to bring a higher price.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, jfulton wrote:
If other companies produced inks as good as the present Epson stuff, and
those worked with the complicated printers, yes, that
guaranteed income Judy mentions, would diminish. These people out here use
the left over ink from spent cartridges so it's the
genuine thing but does come from various ages. Theoretically the inks show
their age whilst sitting in cartridges but pigmented
inks, as most o you know, lie in suspension and a good round or shaking is
helpful to maintain consistency in particular if you
use one of the large printers like I do (24" - 40"). The caveat, I suppose,
is the these 'mixed' inks might not be as supposedly
consistent as are the original manufactured product. To me the prime point is
reduction of waste and use of the product to its
very end. Do we all squeeze that tube of toothpaste to the finite
As for the 'other' printers, yes, they surely have become better. Like Toyota
overtaking GM they have emulated the best of their ilk.
Yet, what with the research, the new head and ink designs, and improved ICC
profiles, the Epson products provide, IMO, extremely
consistent and long-lived output and result. I have recently run well over
1200 20x24 prints through my 7800 w/zero problems,
only one major head cleaning and perfect consistency . . . even after taking
three months off for travel.
On November2007, at 6:52 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
The lovely thing about monopolies is that they usually end up chopping
their own heads off. If anything, this opens a window of opportunity for
other companies to create similar technology and level the playing field.
In order to maintain their market share, Epson will have to keep prices
low, or play ball.
I've had the impression that (like they say -- was it Gillette that gave
the razor free, or nearly free and made its profit on the blades ?) Epson
sells its printers more or less at cost and makes its profit on the ink --
or did. But, incredible as it may seem, I know folks who claim to have
made very satisfactory prints/negatives with other makes of printer (HP &
Brother come to mind, tho that may be just my mind)... In any event I
would assume that totally blocking other strategies for ink without
lowering the cost of its own cartridges would seriously affect total
sales... as Trevor suggests.