Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

[DPNow]

Do you really know how much your ink-jet printer costs to run? We bet you don't. And yet you probably know how many miles or kilometres your car will travel on a gallon or litre of fuel. So why is it that printer running costs are so difficult to obtain? In his latest Manual Focus column, DPNow.com editor, Ian Burley, says it's about time the industry provided proper running cost information to its ink-jet printer customers. If they don't, they will only have themselves to blame for the rise in the demand for cheaper third party inks.

More...

[Patrick]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Do you really know how much your ink-jet printer costs to run? We bet you don't. And yet you probably know how many miles or kilometres your car will travel on a gallon or litre of fuel. So why is it that printer running costs are so difficult to obtain? In his latest Manual Focus column, DPNow.com editor, Ian Burley, says it's about time the industry provided proper running cost information to its ink-jet printer customers. If they don't, they will only have themselves to blame for the rise in the demand for cheaper third party inks.

More...

[Ian]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view. In many instances I'm sure you are right. Sadly, if the impact of people buying cheap third party inks is felt by the printer manufacturers, it only prevents them from giving serious printers like you and me from getting a better deal on decent inks from the manufacturer.

I think the ink-jet printer phenomenon is almost unique - very hard to find a fair comparison with something else.

I completely agree that people are likely to be shocked at the true cost of printing, because it ain't cheap and so many people seam to be under the illusion that it must be cheap.

Let's take the analogy and turn it around - how many third party ink manufacturers also offer a cheap alternative third party printer?

I disagree. All an optical disc mechanism does is spin a disc and place a laser pickup over the correct position on the disc. It's certainly a precision device, but electronically and mechanically very simple. A printer is a much more complicated device, managing the flow of several liquids through a series of hundreds of microscopic pumps. They are also physically larger, have several motors and require relatively complex software to be operated. Many now have a colour LCD screen and a fairly sophisticated user interface.

If you think I am somehow operating as a mouthpiece for the printer industry, then either you haven't read what I wrote or I have failed to get the message across.

If the press and media were critical of ink prices on a persistent level I bet they would start to get lower.

Patrick

I believe I raised the point that the current economics of printer and inks pricing punishes those who use printers more than the average. I was also critical of the industry for not being more helpful and open in providing useful data on running costs.

My fundamental points are:

1. It's almost certainly a false economy to buy third party inks. There may be some exceptions to this and your CIS se may be one of them, but Epson believes that if photographers selected a printer that was designed for their level and kind of use in the first place, CIS would, in the long run, be a less competitive option. They argue that the complexity, inconvenience and risk of setting up CIS on a printer that wasn't really designed for heavy duty professional printing is questionable. They also feel theur inks are superior anyway, but I would agree that the differences are much smaller than with cheap consumer inks.

They would argue that a heavier duty, larger format printer with more economical ink cartridges would be a better solution overall. Of course that's a bigger all-in investment at the start.

With cheap consumer inks - certainly for printing photos you'd want to keep, I could not in any honesty recommend any third party inks. I have no proof at all that third party ink manufacturers have the required engineering and chemistry skills needed to produce inks that are comparable to manufacturer inks. With regard to re-using cartridges with integrated print heads, that is completely unacceptable to me, anyway.

2. I strongly feel that one big reason why people are so keen to save pennies by buying cheap inks is that there is far too little information from the industry about the true cost of photo printing and why it costs what it does. It's not easy to produce this information, but it's perfectly possible. It would help rebuild some trust that some people may have lost.

3. I also feel strongly that people should know that the more the third party ink industry grows, the less chance there is of people wanting to use the best inks for their printers will have of getting a better deal on their inks. A lot of people are buying cheap inks and getting bad results and either not caring or transferring the blame to the printer manufacturers and it's the rest of us that will be affected by such people.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view. In many instances I'm sure you are right. Sadly, if the impact of people buying cheap third party inks is felt by the printer manufacturers, it only prevents them from giving serious printers like you and me from getting a better deal on decent inks from the manufacturer.



I think the ink-jet printer phenomenon is almost unique - very hard to find a fair comparison with something else.



I completely agree that people are likely to be shocked at the true cost of printing, because it ain't cheap and so many people seam to be under the illusion that it must be cheap.

Let's take the analogy and turn it around - how many third party ink manufacturers also offer a cheap alternative third party printer?



I disagree. All an optical disc mechanism does is spin a disc and place a laser pickup over the correct position on the disc. It's certainly a precision device, but electronically and mechanically very simple. A printer is a much more complicated device, managing the flow of several liquids through a series of hundreds of microscopic pumps. They are also physically larger, have several motors and require relatively complex software to be operated. Many now have a colour LCD screen and a fairly sophisticated user interface.



If you think I am somehow operating as a mouthpiece for the printer industry, then either you haven't read what I wrote or I have failed to get the message across.



I believe I raised the point that the current economics of printer and inks pricing punishes those who use printers more than the average. I was also critical of the industry for not being more helpful and open in providing useful data on running costs.

My fundamental points are:

1. It's almost certainly a false economy to buy third party inks. There may be some exceptions to this and your CIS se may be one of them, but Epson believes that if photographers selected a printer that was designed for their level and kind of use in the first place, CIS would, in the long run, be a less competitive option. They argue that the complexity, inconvenience and risk of setting up CIS on a printer that wasn't really designed for heavy duty professional printing is questionable. They also feel theur inks are superior anyway, but I would agree that the differences are much smaller than with cheap consumer inks.

They would argue that a heavier duty, larger format printer with more economical ink cartridges would be a better solution overall. Of course that's a bigger all-in investment at the start.

With cheap consumer inks - certainly for printing photos you'd want to keep, I could not in any honesty recommend any third party inks. I have no proof at all that third party ink manufacturers have the required engineering and chemistry skills needed to produce inks that are comparable to manufacturer inks. With regard to re-using cartridges with integrated print heads, that is completely unacceptable to me, anyway.

2. I strongly feel that one big reason why people are so keen to save pennies by buying cheap inks is that there is far too little information from the industry about the true cost of photo printing and why it costs what it does. It's not easy to produce this information, but it's perfectly possible. It would help rebuild some trust that some people may have lost.

3. I also feel strongly that people should know that the more the third party ink industry grows, the less chance there is of people wanting to use the best inks for their printers will have of getting a better deal on their inks. A lot of people are buying cheap inks and getting bad results and either not caring or transferring the blame to the printer manufacturers and it's the rest of us that will be affected by such people.

Ian

Of course manufacturers are going to say their inks are better than third party inks, that is to be expected. The truth can be something else.

You touch on the one concern I have of using CIS, will the extra weight of the tubing prove in the long term a problem, Time will tell.

As to there being less chance of lower priced inks from manufacturers because of cheap third party ink, well surly market forces play a part here. Evidently manufacturers are happy with their market share. I still firmly believe that lower priced inks from the main players is possible, and will happen when third party inks start to dent manufacturers market share sufficiently.

It would be very interesting to know how many gallons of ink are sold per day by each of the main players, compared with the best of the third party suppliers.

Patrick

[JSR]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Ultimately the old OEM vs 'compatible' debate could be solved by the manufacturers tomorrow if they wished. All the likes of Epson et al have to do is to sell their inks to all markets at the same low prices that they charge in Japan.

If the prices were that cheap, most compatibles just wouldn't be worth buying. The only third-parties that would remain on the market are those that have a valid part to play - CIS for high-volume users, and alternative inksets, neither of which are catered for by OEM.

The OEM manufacturers may say that charging less for inks will cut their profit margin, but that's a flawed argument. If a photo costs 50% less to print, most people would print twice as many photos. That means the actual amount of profit would remain the same, they'd just sell more ink. In addition to that, the OEMs would also sell twice as much paper because customers are printing twice as many photos. The profits from paper sales would double.

Customers would get cheaper prints, OEMs would make more money, cheapy compatibles that ruin printers would be driven out of the market. Everybody wins.

But no, OEMs would rather sell at high prices, keep us all in the dark, then sue anyone and everybody thus fostering bad relations. No one prints because it's too expensive, those that do get fading photos and ruined printheads, OEMs argue with everyone, third party sales prosper. Only third party ink suppliers win. Illogical.

Still, since when has logic ever had anything to do with the printer business?

[Ian]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Ultimately the old OEM vs 'compatible' debate could be solved by the manufacturers tomorrow if they wished. All the likes of Epson et al have to do is to sell their inks to all markets at the same low prices that they charge in Japan.

If the prices were that cheap, most compatibles just wouldn't be worth buying. The only third-parties that would remain on the market are those that have a valid part to play - CIS for high-volume users, and alternative inksets, neither of which are catered for by OEM.

The OEM manufacturers may say that charging less for inks will cut their profit margin, but that's a flawed argument. If a photo costs 50% less to print, most people would print twice as many photos. That means the actual amount of profit would remain the same, they'd just sell more ink. In addition to that, the OEMs would also sell twice as much paper because customers are printing twice as many photos. The profits from paper sales would double.

Customers would get cheaper prints, OEMs would make more money, cheapy compatibles that ruin printers would be driven out of the market. Everybody wins.

But no, OEMs would rather sell at high prices, keep us all in the dark, then sue anyone and everybody thus fostering bad relations. No one prints because it's too expensive, those that do get fading photos and ruined printheads, OEMs argue with everyone, third party sales prosper. Only third party ink suppliers win. Illogical.

Still, since when has logic ever had anything to do with the printer business?

OK, let's take your argument: HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc., all halved their ink prices tomorrow. You are a third party ink vendor. How long would it take you to reach for the phone to get your lawyer to slap an unfair practice injunction on the manufacturers?

Anyway, as the third party ink manufacturers have massive margins anyway, it would simply mean cheaper prices from them too. Good for us, I guess, but doesn't really address the issue of people falling foul of poor quality ink.

Ian

[lumix]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

[JSR]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

OK, let's take your argument: HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc., all halved their ink prices tomorrow. You are a third party ink vendor. How long would it take you to reach for the phone to get your lawyer to slap an unfair practice injunction on the manufacturers?

Anyway, as the third party ink manufacturers have massive margins anyway, it would simply mean cheaper prices from them too. Good for us, I guess, but doesn't really address the issue of people falling foul of poor quality ink.

Ian

Okay, so let Epson keep their prices high. Let them rip-off customers based on where they happen to live. Fine. So just how do you stop cheap inks that damage printers? If the solution isn't for Epson to lower their prices, what is it?

Standing on a soap box preaching "don't use cheap, use OEM" isn't going to convince anyone. If Epson and the others want people to stop using third party inks, the only way to do it is to lower prices and compete with them.

There's no middle ground. People buy cheap because cheap appeals to the wallet. Epson will only stop people buying cheap by selling cheap.

[JSR]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

I'd be interested to know which papers they rated so badly. It's fairly universally agreed that Epson Premium papers is one of the best there is. Can't get good paper for your Canon? Use Epson Premium. Can't get good paper for your HP? Use Epson Premium. You'll find similar posts on forums all over the internet.

What kind of prices were they touting to suggest Epson is so expensive on paper? I'm still working through stocks of Epson Premium I bought when 6"x4" was 6p per sheet and A4 was 26p per sheet. How much cheaper do they need to be?

A photo out of my Epson Picturemate using Epson inks and Epson paper costs 12.5p. How much cheaper is cheap paper going to make the print?

Epson Premium is far away from being the "worst paper at the highest price". That must have been one heck of a blinkered article to come to that conclusion. They didn't get their results from the same HP-biased company that PC Pro employed a few months ago did they?

[Ian]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

Ron, this What Digital Camera article? Did you catch the name of the author by any chance?

It's EpsoN, by the way - and in any case, why do you think Epson paper is "the worst"?

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Epson Premium is far away from being the "worst paper at the highest price". That must have been one heck of a blinkered article to come to that conclusion. They didn't get their results from the same HP-biased company that PC Pro employed a few months ago did they?

Wasn't that Ron's opinion rather than the article?

How was PC Pro HP-biased?

Ian

[lumix]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Ron, this What Digital Camera article? Did you catch the name of the author by any chance?

It's EpsoN, by the way - and in any case, why do you think Epson paper is "the worst"?

Ian

[Ian]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Just in case it isn't really obvious, I wrote that article

None of these papers were 'poor' - and in any case they were 'fine art' papers and not your usual consumer papers.

The month before I reviewed consumer papers and Tesco's own brand 'premium quality' glosst paper was singled out for some very serious criticism. I didn't review Epson Premium Glossy paper as the brief was to review third party papers only, but it would have been rated very high. It's a superb paper, though it's not particularly cheap (though not the most expensive, either).

Ian

Ian

[lumix]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Just in case it isn't really obvious, I wrote that article

None of these papers were 'poor' - and in any case they were 'fine art' papers and not your usual consumer papers.

The month before I reviewed consumer papers and Tesco's own brand 'premium quality' glosst paper was singled out for some very serious criticism. I didn't review Epson Premium Glossy paper as the brief was to review third party papers only, but it would have been rated very high. It's a superb paper, though it's not particularly cheap (though not the most expensive, either).

Ian

Ian

Ian I have read many articles by yourself, and enjoyed doing so. The fact that it was for Fine Art Paper was very important. It's the likes of those that frequent this forum, what I would describe as serious photographers, that would use such a paper. So your findings in that review apply to most of the members here. I have not the means to test as you did, so can only be influenced by your review.

[Patrick]

Re: Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

Ian I have read many articles by yourself, and enjoyed doing so. The fact that it was for Fine Art Paper was very important. It's the likes of those that frequent this forum, what I would describe as serious photographers, that would use such a paper. So your findings in that review apply to most of the members here. I have not the means to test as you did, so can only be influenced by your review.