U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Epson Ink carts

RE: Epson Ink carts



Judy, Our old 1160s and 7000s and such don't have a chipped cart. This was
introduced by Epson for a reason(s). While they could have the printer and
cartridge to talk to each other, it also allows them to control the carts.
They want that control. 

All in the name of quality, they are making it harder and harder for
tinkerer to open up machines and reset waste ink, etc. 

Knowing that you could n't lift the hood of your new car might keep you from
buying it, and if the gas could only be put in at branded gas stations I bet
many would avoid such vehicles. Epson looks like they want that kind of
control. 

Write and complain to GW and his band of Free marketers that are locking up
the free system. 

Eric

Eric Neilsen Photo
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214 827-8301
 
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
SKype ejprinter
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:22 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: 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 
own premises.

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 
than others.

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.

Judy

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 
> possibility?
>
> 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.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> 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.
>> 
>> Judy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>