Consumer Reports rejects third party ink cartridges

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaron Epstein
  • Start date Start date
A

Aaron Epstein

The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

best, Aaron in N. Hollywood
 
The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

best, Aaron in N. Hollywood
Click to expand...

This just got discussed in dpreview forums. The consensus: BS
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
 
Aaron said:
The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?
Click to expand...

I haven't read that CR issue, but like most of CR's stuff, their "tests"
are often based on deliberately limited sources.

For example, if you buy a couple of the cheapest brands of universal
cartridges you can find, and they suck, does that mean all brands suck?

No, of course not.

But CR does exactly that and then publishes reports based on their
skewed data. Good quality ink is available at lower costs than original,
but CR wouldn't test those because it doesn't meet their criteria and
agenda.

Also, CR is well known to have biased reports that favour certain
manufacturers needs and wants. There are many an article that reports
the exact opposite of the known truth. This is due to funding
issues...they get funding for their independent testing from the
manufacturers, suppliers, and various other companies, and charitable
organizations. Of course, there's a huge conflict of interest in many of
their reports, but CR never mentions all the fine details about their
funding in the reports.

Imagine a printer company coming to you with a $100,000 donation and
asking you to do a report on third-party inks. Would you shaft them and
lose any further funding? I don't think so.

So to sum it all up...Consumer Reports is full of shit. :)
 
The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.
Click to expand...

Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?
 
Malev said:
Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?
Click to expand...

CU does not need bribes to make irrelevant, misleading, or just plain
erroneous judgements for their readership. The organization is, after
all, predicated on people needing someone else telling them what is
good, bad and indifferent. They find a ready supply of readers who fit
the profile.

Q
 
Sounds like you are part of the majority that you have itemized in your
diatribe.

Isn't it good to just like everyone else??


<:
: In short, with a 90% functional illiteracy, it doesn't matter much
: what CR writes. If you can read, and you give a shit, you are reading
: the wrong magazine.
:
: Jim
:
:
:
 
Bill said:
So to sum it all up...Consumer Reports is full of shit. :)
Click to expand...

Consumer Reports probably reviewed the type of cartridge that the clueless
consumer will buy.


Someone posting in here asking about the quality of ink carts is already
heads and shoulders above the average consumer.
 
[email protected] wrote in
Given the limited selection available in
stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)
Click to expand...

Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the average
consumer would use.

Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we like to
admit it or not.
 
CU does not need bribes to make irrelevant, misleading, or just plain
erroneous judgements for their readership. The organization is, after
all, predicated on people needing someone else telling them what is
good, bad and indifferent. They find a ready supply of readers who fit
the profile.

Q
Click to expand...
While it's true that "CR does not need bribes to make irrelevant,
misleading, or just plain erroneous judgements for their readership,"
this is the result of writing for an audience that does not have
special requirements and just wants to deal with what it finds at the
local store.

In short, a typical American Idiot (see the new reality program at
your local electronics superstore) has no interest in refilling or in
ordering ink carts by mail. Given the limited selection available in
stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)

Just because you may not be a typical American Idiot, does not mean
that CR is trying to mislead you -- you are just looking for
professional advice in a magazine that caters to an audience that
doesn't care.

A bigger problem is that an estimated 30% of Americans can't read, and
an estimated 40% more of Americans won't read if there's any
alternative like watching television commercials. As evidence, printed
documentation is no longer supplied with software (and even hardware).
About 10% read suspense, adventure, murder, and romance novels, not
necessarily in that order. The remaining 20% spend their time flaming
on Usenet news groups, where they prove they can't read accurately or
spell accurately.

In short, with a 90% functional illiteracy, it doesn't matter much
what CR writes. If you can read, and you give a shit, you are reading
the wrong magazine.

Jim
 
Lucas said:
Consumer Reports probably reviewed the type of cartridge that the clueless
consumer will buy.

Someone posting in here asking about the quality of ink carts is already
heads and shoulders above the average consumer.
Click to expand...

I AM NOT!

Oh wait, you meant that as a compliment...

:)

By the way, I knew CR was full of shit long before I started reading
newsgroups. My father is a techie, and he got me interested in all sorts
of electronics at a young age. By the time I was 15, I had a better
sounding stereo system than most well-off adults, and was trashing CR
back then when they would review some garbage like Bose speakers and
claim they sound the best...ugh.
 
Lucas said:
[email protected] wrote in


Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the average
consumer would use.

Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we like to
admit it or not.
Click to expand...

So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources are
available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?

Answer: their sponsors wouldn't like it.

I've read far too many reports from CR that do not reflect the full
truth, even for average consumers.
 
Bill said:
I AM NOT!

Oh wait, you meant that as a compliment...

:)

By the way, I knew CR was full of shit long before I started reading
newsgroups. My father is a techie, and he got me interested in all sorts
of electronics at a young age. By the time I was 15, I had a better
sounding stereo system than most well-off adults, and was trashing CR
back then when they would review some garbage like Bose speakers and
claim they sound the best...ugh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear ya. I used to work as a salesman for a very high-end stereo
store. Back then, we had Infinity, Polk, Klipsch, B&O, and some others I
can't remember. But never had the Bose line. This was like 20 years ago, I
was in my middle twenties and I had an ass-kicking system complete with dBX
Noise reduction and dynamic range expander and a digital reverb system, open
reel, and a shitload of other equipment. But speakers came down to how you
like your music. Warm, bright, flat, low-end heavy. There was no definitive
speaker. Customers would always want to know what the THD was and whether
the speakers could handle 400W/ch. But they could never understand how a
50W/ch amp could blow 200W/ch speakers. So it doesn't surprise me that
people take CR reviews as gospel.
 
Bill said:
So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources are
available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the review yet - maybe because the average consumer wouldn't
buy from an online store?
 
I don't think Consumer's Union (publisher of CR) takes any kind of
commercial funding. As others have said, they cater to the average guy,
not an enthusiast in whatever they are testing. They also often goof up
by not having real expertise in the subject area themselves.. but how
may people are real afficianados or experts in something like pancake
mix unless they work in the industry?

I find I have to read reviews carefully, and decide whether their basic
criteria match mine.

A classic my father always liked to cite was a review they had of
electric razors. They downrated the model he used because the cord was
too short. My father thought the cord was in fact too long. The
article showed the testing room with a bunch of people shaving in front
of mirrors and the outlets at a normal height above the floor for an
office, living room, etc. Most bathrooms have outlets near the mirror,
much higher than in a regular room. So the test conditions just didn't
match normal use.


ANyhow, back to sponsors and bribes.. there are a few sound alike
magazines like "consumer's digest" or "consumer review" which do allow
themselves to be quoted in manufacturer's ads and may be pawns of industry.

Bill wrote:
 
WELL SAID


: I don't think Consumer's Union (publisher of CR) takes any kind of
: commercial funding. As others have said, they cater to the average guy,
: not an enthusiast in whatever they are testing. They also often goof up
: by not having real expertise in the subject area themselves.. but how
: may people are real afficianados or experts in something like pancake
: mix unless they work in the industry?
:
: I find I have to read reviews carefully, and decide whether their basic
: criteria match mine.
:
: A classic my father always liked to cite was a review they had of
: electric razors. They downrated the model he used because the cord was
: too short. My father thought the cord was in fact too long. The
: article showed the testing room with a bunch of people shaving in front
: of mirrors and the outlets at a normal height above the floor for an
: office, living room, etc. Most bathrooms have outlets near the mirror,
: much higher than in a regular room. So the test conditions just didn't
: match normal use.
:
:
: ANyhow, back to sponsors and bribes.. there are a few sound alike
: magazines like "consumer's digest" or "consumer review" which do allow
: themselves to be quoted in manufacturer's ads and may be pawns of
industry.
:
: Bill wrote:
:
:
: > Also, CR is well known to have biased reports that favour certain
: > manufacturers needs and wants. There are many an article that reports
: > the exact opposite of the known truth. This is due to funding
: > issues...they get funding for their independent testing from the
: > manufacturers, suppliers, and various other companies, and charitable
: > organizations. Of course, there's a huge conflict of interest in many of
: > their reports, but CR never mentions all the fine details about their
: > funding in the reports.
: >
: > Imagine a printer company coming to you with a $100,000 donation and
: > asking you to do a report on third-party inks. Would you shaft them and
: > lose any further funding? I don't think so.
 
Bill said:
So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources
are available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?

Answer: their sponsors wouldn't like it.

I've read far too many reports from CR that do not reflect the full
truth, even for average consumers.
Click to expand...

CU has a practice of researching only enough for supporting the limited
thesis in the report. As a result, they tend to miss what even a
relative novice would find with just a bit of research. One benefit is
that by doing so, they can never be criticised for errors; omissions
don't count at CU. CU has been sued repeatedly for errors of omission
and have been found impervious by the courts, IMO.

Q
 
The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

best, Aaron in N. Hollywood
Click to expand...

I have not read the CU article, but I have read what
www.wilhelm-research.com/ has to say. While I have heard that there
are a few good third party sources, many if not most, are inferior to
those provided by the printer manufacturer.
On the www.wilhelm-research.com/ site there is much information on
inks in general. Also there you will find a current and specific PDF
article printed in September of 2003 where third party inks were
tested. This article may be found at www.wilhelm-research.com/ and
http://tinyurl.com/xy59 will take you right to the article but you
must have adobe reader installed to read it. This is a free program
available here http://tinyurl.com/6ip . Wilhelm mentions the specific
inks he compared. The brands tested were from:

1. Amazon Imaging
2. Carrot Ink
3. OA100 (PrintPal)
4. Rainbow logo (a white box with nothing on it except for a rainbow
logo)
5. Canon
6. Epson (information on these last two inks may have been drawn from
previous testing)

As many on Usenet have pointed out many times, you pay your money and
make a choice. The manufacturers ink cost more but items including:

1. Color balance
2. Print longevity
3. Head clogging

are _usually_ better. If these issues
are not as important to you as cost then, of course, that is certainly
your choice.

YMMV and many will cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. However,
until someone presents _ACTUAL TEST DATA_ to refute Wilhelm test data
(not anecdotal evidence) then I will trust his site. I tried third
party inks with my Epson and even reported good results here. Except
for color balance, which had to be drastically changed, I thought they
were OK. After using the ink a while, I noticed that even with color
adjustment, the prints did not have the same color balance as Epson
inks. I also had some trouble with head clogging with one set of these
inks. Based on personal experience and testing by
www.wilhelm-research.com/ I have returned to Epson inks.

What I think would be more useful than replying with "that is BS" or
"you can not trust CU" etc., would be a list of third party inks that
are:

1. Low cost
2. have accurate color balance
3. have equal or better print longevity
4. good at avoiding head clogging

The third party inks that reportedly do this often cost as much or
more than the manufacturers own ink.

Richard
 
dp said:
I don't think Consumer's Union (publisher of CR) takes any kind of
commercial funding.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There are published reports of their monetary sources, and
many of them are commercial suppliers which "donate" funds to CU. And
their non-commercial sources often have their own agendas, and CU
complies with them in order to keep their funding.

That is a conflict of interest, one that has been known for many years.

Lawsuits against CU/CR are actually common, but they usually fail not
because of any lack of legal basis, but because CU has a very large
legal department that can pummel most other companies. Money talks.

This has gone off topic, so I won't be commenting further. However, if
you want to learn more, google for it.
 
Lucas said:
I haven't read the review yet - maybe because the average consumer wouldn't
buy from an online store?
Click to expand...

But anyone with a computer and any kind of internet connection could,
and that is a large portion of the average joes.
 
PLEASE support your comments

Can you identify the sources of your OPINIONS.


: dp wrote:
:
: >I don't think Consumer's Union (publisher of CR) takes any kind of
: >commercial funding.
:
: Incorrect. There are published reports of their monetary sources, and
: many of them are commercial suppliers which "donate" funds to CU. And
: their non-commercial sources often have their own agendas, and CU
: complies with them in order to keep their funding.
:
: That is a conflict of interest, one that has been known for many years.
:
: Lawsuits against CU/CR are actually common, but they usually fail not
: because of any lack of legal basis, but because CU has a very large
: legal department that can pummel most other companies. Money talks.
:
: This has gone off topic, so I won't be commenting further. However, if
: you want to learn more, google for it.
 
Back
Top