arstechnica.com — "Printer and cartridge maker Epson is a step closer to completely barring third-party manufacturers from selling Epson-compatible cartridges in the US. The upshot is more expensive ink, and we expect to see use of this tactic increase in the market." Because printer ink wasn't expensive enough, really.
Apr 9, 2007 View in Crawl 4
firehedApr 9, 2007
@dpknc84 - Google's Picasa, I'm pretty sure, has a built in iPhoto-like ordering button. I've never used the service, but it's a fairly solid photo management tool for Windows, especially for free. In fact, it's basically iPhoto for XP, in my brief experiences with both (I use Aperture, and didn't really have any photo management solution until very shortly before switching to a Mac; up until which point I used Picasa preceded by dated folders)I never get photo prints made, but my mother has one of those weird compact things designed specifically for photos. Dye sublimation possibly? In any case, they're not too expensive, don't use ink but instead some ribbon thing (doesn't jam, uses proper photo paper, and it says right on the box how many prints you can get out of it). Prints look much better than anything out of an inkjet that I've ever seen. I played around with it a bit and was very satisfied with the output. Oh yeah, they don't get destroyed if they get wet, unlike an inkjet. I think it's a Canon or a Kodak brand. If you want to do photos at home, I'd really suggest giving it a try. Well, if you don't need anything other than 4x6" prints anyways.I bought a cheap Samsung laser printer (ML-1710, maybe $80 after a rebate) a few years ago, and only fairly recently needed to replace the stock cartridge, which is only 1/3 full. Mind you I don't print too often, but for the very slight premium over an inkjet, it was WELL worth not having to replace cartridges on a bi-weekly basis. Very rarely has problems (jammed once or twice since I bought it), and requires minimal effort to actually get working. None of that stupid crapware and ink monitoring things that tell you the cartridge is empty when it's really still 2/3 full.I once opened an "empty" ink cartridge, an HP, just to see how empty it really was. Uhh... it was literally dripping all over the place; didn't get the stains off my fingers for days. In stark contrast to an old Canon that had each color separated and in clear containers so you'd actually know when they were empty. It finally broke, but I've NEVER had good luck with an inkjet that's not a Canon.Rambling, I know. But if you want photos, either get a proper photo printer, or have them sent off. A cheap laser printer would be good for most people - low-maintenance, cheaper in the long-term, usually faster, much crisper text (that doesn't run if the paper gets wet). Who regularly needs to print in color? I don't think I have since sixth or seventh grade, and I'm at the end of my freshman year of college now. Only issue I can really see is that they're fairly hefty compared to an inkjet. I just stashed mine on top of my subwoofer, under my bed. Not ideal, but it's out of sight and out of mind.
dnegativeApr 10, 2007
CANON CANON CANON. cheaper and give you way more ink. *hugs my MP530*
aarond12Apr 10, 2007
I got an inexpensive Konica/Minolta color laser printer and -- believe it or not -- the price per page is FAR lower than an ink jet printer!
pr0jektcha0sApr 10, 2007
Yeah, those little Canon's are small dye-subs that do 4x6. They do look great and are fairly inexpensive to use. The good thing about dye-subs is you know exactly how many prints you are going to get from the ribbon. The photos then get a glossy or matted coating to protect the photo. To get larger photos, you'll need to step up to a considerably more expensive model.
generalloyApr 10, 2007
Oh please...it's an intended design flaw! Google 'class action epson' and come back here and tell me how you can spout this BS still.I had one of the Epson printers from the lawsuit and it's not a joke. This company is filth and I can only suspect you're involved with them somehow, it wouldn't be the first time on a blog.
Closed AccountApr 11, 2007
Standard for printing over a network? Not for us lowly consumers. I agree about the software too...it doesn't work properly most of the time. At least it doesn't suck more ink than an 8th grader chewing pens.
mikey4789May 1, 2007
I used to work for an inkjet company and the companies usually make a loss selling a printer... do you REALLY think a printer can be made for that price, well it can't. They make money from the consumables. However I hate that business model, but does work. Mobile phone companies are the same, the phones are quite cheap but the calls are expensive. I know of one country which sells mobiles for their REAL price, i.e. $500 but the calls are the same as landline calls.What I DO think is slightly satanic is the way Epson appear to make quality bad on purpose if you use a third party ink cartridge. There is NO WAY that an inkjet printer can show some of the printing glitches I've seen just by using third party cartridges. If the chip in the cartridge isn't recognised then I believe that they intentionally cause bad print quality. It's like if cars only allowed own-brand gas by having secret chemical markers in the gas, that caused the car to INTENTIONALLY stutter and false start etc... then when you ask them why they will say "our gas is designed FOR that car" but in reality it's absolute BS.I guess in reality if third party companies force prices down too low, then it will push up the price of printers. But I would rather pay $400 for a printer, and then pay the real price + small profit for an ink cartridge. The problem is that because all the other print companies have adopted this pricing structure, it means that Epson can't suddenly charge people the REAL price of a printer, as it would kill them, as most people don't think about the price of consumables until after purchase.I'm always sceptical when in print-options you can select the paper type, and Epson ask you to select "Epson photo quality paper" or "Other photo quality paper", well I use third party paper, but I will ALWAYS select Epson photo quality paper in the options, as then they can't INTENTIONALLY make the quality slightly less good.I did NOT work for Epson by the way, and everything I have said above is alleged. I guess if a large number of other people have had similar problems then we know they might be playing dirty tricks with print quality.
peterpan232Jul 2, 2009
hey guys just goto <a class="user" href="http://www.t0711.co.uk">http://www.t0711.co.uk</a> there you can buy the originals really cheap and they sell the british premium compatibles which are legal as they have paid epson a fee sum for the right to make compatibles.