Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

[guymclaren]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Thats all good and well for you blokes in the first world. When I was there I too could have afforded but with exchange rates and all that I can hardly afford the drum and cartridges for my Canon Lazer printer.

I use inkjet for small stuff, I bought the pixma to print photos, No paper for the lazer printer here beside standard stock. I maintain that charging me for a printer without ink is tantamaount to fraud. I was conned buying a printer that should have given me some work before needing to replace cartridges.

Replacing the cartridges will cost me 30% more than I paid for the printer just for the colour cartridge, You tell me thats not a F$%king scam.

[rogleale]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

I agree with Patrick whole heartedly about Canon Printers, though not necessarily the cheapest models. I have used Canon for may years now with consistently good results, and with considerably lower costs than the other makes. I must also make the point that, apart from the pixel peepers amongst us, the majority of people looking at the prints we produce would see no difference in the final results from any of the manufacturers.

As for non-genuine inks, it is necessary to differentiate between 'compatible' cartridges, and bulk ink for refills. I have tried those cartridges supposed to be compatible, sometimes with dreadful results, and would now avoid them like the plague. I now, after trying several different suppliers, refill my Canon cartridges with bulk inks which are as good as the genuine ink for colours, if not for longevity. None of the photos around my house are showing any signs of fading, some after several years, but they are all under glass. The photographs that I really value are kept in albums and are as new.

As a footnote, I recently converted the owner of a commercial printing press to using refill ink in his professional Epsons of various models. I did it by showing him that an Epson cartridge reporting itself empty, and thereby stopping the print process, still contained about 25% of its original labelled capacity. I understand that there is a class action in progress against Epson because of repeated cases of this being reported.

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

That is just not true! Try reading a few of the printer tests available from places like Tom's Hardware. Canon provide some of the most generous cartridges around, and their printers provide prints at a lower cost than any other printer.

Roger

[Alchemist]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Ian,

Yes, there are a few very good inkjet remanufacturering firms. Unforturnately there are also some very poor quality remanufacturing firms out there.

The real issue is, that one can print test the the refilled cartridge in production, but as many as 3% may fail in the customer's printer. The OEM has a failure rate of only 0.5 %. Why the difference? The resistor elements fail by continually being heated and cooled, fatuge, and it is difficult to predict when this will occur on a used cartridge. Also oxidation, of the passive coating on the resistor surface , will cause poorer heat transfer to the ink and possibly less perfect ink droplets will be formed.

But for a 40-75% savings it is worth the risk, if one buys from a high quality reamnufacturer. Many times the remanufactured ink has properties superior to the OEM; pigmented ink (postal waterfast) years before the OEM introduced them. The "aftermarket" pushes the OEMs to develop better and sometimes less expensive products (HP printer costs of some models are far less today than we paid for less featured models in the early 1990s).

I could write specifics on the pros and cons of this for hours, but will terminate here. If there is interest I will post more later.

Alchemist

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Thats all good and well for you blokes in the first world. When I was there I too could have afforded but with exchange rates and all that I can hardly afford the drum and cartridges for my Canon Lazer printer.

I use inkjet for small stuff, I bought the pixma to print photos, No paper for the lazer printer here beside standard stock. I maintain that charging me for a printer without ink is tantamaount to fraud. I was conned buying a printer that should have given me some work before needing to replace cartridges.

Replacing the cartridges will cost me 30% more than I paid for the printer just for the colour cartridge, You tell me thats not a F$%king scam.

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

I agree with Patrick whole heartedly about Canon Printers, though not necessarily the cheapest models. I have used Canon for may years now with consistently good results, and with considerably lower costs than the other makes. I must also make the point that, apart from the pixel peepers amongst us, the majority of people looking at the prints we produce would see no difference in the final results from any of the manufacturers.

After having used dye ink printers for years, I chose to upgrade due to the issue of longevity. Epson's gargantuan strides in pigment printers at the time was where to go. Canon has not been able to catch up with Epson until several years later - we're still waiting now. Improvement is necessary if we want better printers. Better printers give us good quality *and* fade resistance - there's no need to compromise. Old printers may give good quality, and that may be enough for many, but many others don't want their treasured photos to fade.

One question, though, - if, as you claim (citing Tom's Hardware), Canon printers are so much cheaper to run than Epson, why do you need to run refills?

As for non-genuine inks, it is necessary to differentiate between 'compatible' cartridges, and bulk ink for refills. I have tried those cartridges supposed to be compatible, sometimes with dreadful results, and would now avoid them like the plague. I now, after trying several different suppliers, refill my Canon cartridges with bulk inks which are as good as the genuine ink for colours, if not for longevity. None of the photos around my house are showing any signs of fading, some after several years, but they are all under glass. The photographs that I really value are kept in albums and are as new.

I'm fully behind the need to differentiate between manufacturers who invest in their product (Lyson, Permajet, etc) and the take-your-money-and-run fly-by-nights.

As a footnote, I recently converted the owner of a commercial printing press to using refill ink in his professional Epsons of various models. I did it by showing him that an Epson cartridge reporting itself empty, and thereby stopping the print process, still contained about 25% of its original labelled capacity. I understand that there is a class action in progress against Epson because of repeated cases of this being reported.

And we know how ridiculous that class action is. I've posted here about this before, so I won't go over old ground again.

[Patrick]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

[Alchemist]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Rogleale,

Epson has settled the class action in the US. The settlement is a joke in that Epson inkjet printer purchasers will receive a small amount ( typically less than the cost of one cartridge) of credit to be used at the Epson on line store. Second option is for a portion to be used at the Epson store and a very small amount ( less than a 1/4 of the cost of a cartridge) in cash.

I have been testing Epson and Canon inkjet compatibles, from DCI, Boston, UK, for a client and they look to be the best of the lot, from some 12 worldwide compatible suppliers. Colours are pretty close to the OEM ( profile the inks and get an almost exact printout match) and the preliminary accelerated aging test looks OK. Only after some real correlation to actual daylight tests will the results be final. Results posted by the OEM's should be view as a very rough yardstick of what one will realize.

Alchemist

[rogleale]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Just a few sample figures - cost per page. Not top of the range printers but an indication of what to expect across the range


Cost Per Page
Cost In Text Mode (Dollars & Cents)
Product name Black Text at 5% coverage Color Document at 25% coverage

Canon Pixma MP500 1 cent 7 cents
Dell AIO 944 Photo 5 cents 21 cents
Epson Stylus Photo RX700 3 cents 15 cents
HP Photosmart 3210 1 cent 8 cents
Lexmark P6350 5 cents 14 cents

Cost In Photo Mode (including Good Quality Paper) In $
Product name Photo 10x15 Photo A4
Canon Pixma MP500 0.29 1.18
Dell AIO 944 Photo 0.56 1.71
Epson Stylus Photo RX700 0.45 1.49
HP Photosmart 3210 0.30 1.21
Lexmark P6350 0.39 1.37

Cost Of Ownership In Average Use
Product name Cost over 1 year Cost over 3 years (including purchase price)

Canon Pixma MP500 80 481
Dell AIO 944 Photo 177 682
Epson Stylus Photo RX700 133 748
HP Photosmart 3210 84 552
Lexmark P6350 132 612


Roger

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Just a few sample figures - cost per page. Not top of the range printers but an indication of what to expect across the range.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. The fact that the Epson RX700 is shown as having a 6x4 print cost of 45c means nothing when other Epson printers produce a 6x4 for 20c.

How can you say "not top of the range but an indication of what to expect across the range"..? One printer selected from each manufacturer is meaningless. Certainly the running cost of a budget printer cannot be said to be representative of the running costs of that manufacturer's other ranges.

Does the list disprove the fact that the new Canon 9000 is so much more expensive to run than the R1800, despite having cheaper cartridges? I provided current prices on competing products with prices taken from a known source. Your list consists of prices based on an unknown test method performed by an unknown person or persons. Tests can "prove" anything, but facts speak for themselves.

How was the test done? If it was a biased as recent PC Pro testing, then all figures must be taken with a huge pinch of salt anyway.

The question still remains that if Canon printers typically produce pages costing 1c, why do you need to use refills?

Are the printers selected comparable printers? I don't know any of them. Why were multi-function units price-checked instead of real printers?

[Ian]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Hi Patrick - I think I have lost the thread on this; it doesn't seem very clear what you are disagreeing with? I don't think JSR is being critical of CIS. The finger is being pointed at the cheap refill and cartridge cloners.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Ian,

Yes, there are a few very good inkjet remanufacturering firms. Unforturnately there are also some very poor quality remanufacturing firms out there.

The real issue is, that one can print test the the refilled cartridge in production, but as many as 3% may fail in the customer's printer. The OEM has a failure rate of only 0.5 %. Why the difference? The resistor elements fail by continually being heated and cooled, fatuge, and it is difficult to predict when this will occur on a used cartridge. Also oxidation, of the passive coating on the resistor surface , will cause poorer heat transfer to the ink and possibly less perfect ink droplets will be formed.

But for a 40-75% savings it is worth the risk, if one buys from a high quality reamnufacturer. Many times the remanufactured ink has properties superior to the OEM; pigmented ink (postal waterfast) years before the OEM introduced them. The "aftermarket" pushes the OEMs to develop better and sometimes less expensive products (HP printer costs of some models are far less today than we paid for less featured models in the early 1990s).

I could write specifics on the pros and cons of this for hours, but will terminate here. If there is interest I will post more later.

Alchemist

Respectfully, there is a stack of evidence that randomly sampled 3rd party inks are not colour accurate and fade faster than genuine printer manufacturer inks. If you buy a refilled cartridge with integrated print head you have no idea how many times that cartridge has been refilled or how the previous owner or owners treated that cartridge.

I'd not be making this reply if there was even a modicum of evidence that buying third party ink jet printer cartridges was a risk-free exercise.

The only sensible use of third party inks, as far as I can see, is for printing short life documents where colour accuracy and general print quality is not important. But for photos, it seems like a very false economy to me.

Ian

[rogleale]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Pretty arrogant to ask why I have to use refills if prints are so cheap Eventually all cartridges run empty, and some of us have to spend carefully.
Maybe you are familiarwith the printers tested below.



[IMG][/IMG]

[JSR]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Pretty arrogant to ask why I have to use refills if prints are so cheap Eventually all cartridges run empty, and some of us have to spend carefully.
Maybe you are familiarwith the printers tested below.

Not arrogant at all. I've demonstrated that the generalisation that "Canon is cheaper than Epson" is not true. You drag up results from abitrary tests to demonstrate that, in limited cases, Canon may have a particular printer that runs marginally cheaper than a specific Epson printer. From this you imply "proof" that Canon is always cheaper than everyone else, yet clearly they aren't cheap enough for you to actually use them.

I bought my R1800, and use OEM inks, originally in the misguided belief that Epson were more expensive to run than Canon - but I accepted that extra expense for the longevity, durability, and print-quality of Epson's Ultrachrome inkset. When I later compared Epson and Canon for myself and discovered that Canon are not always cheaper than Epson, I was quite pleased about it. It doesn't matter to me if Epson is more expensive or less expensive than Canon, I shall still use the Ultrachrome inkset because its benefits outweigh the cost-per-print, but regardless of my personal preference the facts speak for themselves.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. I say Canon aren't always cheap and don't use them, you say Canon are cheap but not cheap enough to use. Neither of us use Canon inks. Perhaps it's just me that's getting confused here. Okay, then, you've convinced me - the facts must be wrong and Canon is clearly cheaper than Epson. Let's draw a line under this one now, okay?

Happy New Year.

[Patrick]

Re: Now HP goes after third party ink infringers

Hi Patrick - I think I have lost the thread on this; it doesn't seem very clear what you are disagreeing with? I don't think JSR is being critical of CIS. The finger is being pointed at the cheap refill and cartridge cloners.

Ian