Epson C82 is designed to fail, several times over

  • Thread starter Thread starter nononono
  • Start date Start date
I think I've sounded my case in terms that both environment and use of
resources being at stake. If you'd rather maintain a pedantic posture that
people have a choice, after you spoke to the point of this society now
evolving to the disposible printers, and that's where the industry has led
us, then I think you've missed the point you made in the first place. "Tell
us why do we need legistlation for this." I could, but I don't think you'd
hear me.

--
Jan Alter
(e-mail address removed)
or
(e-mail address removed)12.pa.us
Elmo P. Shagnasty said:
How many examples of legislation to practice would you like me to point
out
before understanding why legislation is necessary?
Click to expand...

Plenty. Tell us why we need legislation for this.

Tell us what the legislation would accomplish.

Tell us what's lacking in the market today that you want to buy, that
you can't.

I just explained it to you: you want an expensive machine with cheap
supplies, and you can buy that TODAY.

Why aren't you, then?

You can buy liquor by the case and get it cheap. But if you go into a
bar, a single drink costs you five bucks. Do we need legislation to
preven that, too?
[/QUOTE]
 
I'm not speaking about printers lasting forever. But I am still using
several Epson printers that are only second generation, making them
about 10 years old now, and they work perfectly well, and, in fact, I
product fine art with them. The printers aren't obsolete in the same way
as a computer might be. In most cases, drivers still exist, and
although they may be slower, and the dot size may be a bit larger, they
often still produce a reasonable image, and if not can be used for other
graphics and text.

It is rare I hear of bad electronics and even less likely that an AC
cord fails. I do hear about literally thousands of head clogs (in all
brands), and random failures most of which are indeed due to bad design
causing head failures or shorts.

The printers, due to the business model used, are simply receptacles for
selling ink cartridges, and the companies seem just fine with having
them dumped after minimal use, often soon after warranty period ends,
sometimes before.

Something has to give. I realize inkjet printers are just one of many
problems in the realm of things. We have gasoline powered cars, and
tons of e-trash. We continue to foul our nest, (mainly the nest of the
developing world) and environmental climate change is becoming so
obvious that few other than George Bush are daft enough to still think
it isn't happening. Yet somehow we continue in blissful ignorance of
the impact of all this manufacturing that soon ends up just more waste.

If we don't smarten up soon, we may not have to worry about it, because
it will be too late.

Art

PS: Interestingly, my Netscape spell-checker suggested "e-trash" should
be replaced with "earth".
 
Or how about> Arthur had helped over 10,000 people in the last 3 years
to repair their printers so they continue to be functional for years,
from the chair in front of his computer. (and those are basically the
ones who email me, there are probably many thousands more who just read
my suggestions on line, google, and other venues, whom I never even hear
from.

Cost of repair: In most cases, under $3, and in 90+% of those cases,
less than 30 minutes time on the part of the printer owner, and once
they learn the techniques, they, just like me, can keep the printer
going for years and years. This is even more true of the older
printers, which were built to work for many years.

So, who exactly is the person who is having problems with their vision,
Elmo?

Art
 
My first Epson printer was an original Stylus Color, which is still in
use by a friend.

It cost $1000 CAN. The ink cartridges were huge and cost about $15-25
each and lasted a good year of printing for the average person. Back
then Epson proudly funded an independent company to test ink costs
between their product and several other brands, and the Epson was the
least costly to run.

The printer only has 12 nozzles per color and I believe 24 black
nozzles, making it pretty slow by today's standards, but it could print
at 720 dpi, although with a larger dot. By the Epson Stylus Pro, the
next generation (and a printer I still use) the dot size was reduced by
1/3rd. These printers keep on going, and if a part does eventually fail,
it is usually available.

The newer printers are designed with less durability, and the business
model has altered to giving the printer away for the "cost" of the ink
in the cartridges. This encourages people to continually upgrade. Some
inkjet companies are beginning to realize this doesn't even make good
business sense for them and are looking at making more durable products,
since they make little to nothing on the printer anyway.

Only if purchasers start demanding a reversal of this business mode is
it likely to change.



Jan Alter wrote:
 
No, that's the way you CHOOSE to see it.

If drinking glasses cost more to clean than to replace it does not make
them disposable. The concept of disposable is that an item is to be
discarded because it's functionality is lost after minimal use. Cost
may be a factor in people determining if something is disposable (how
about a nice fat tax when you buy the printer, which is only returned if
your recycle it after a certain time period)

Art

Your supposition is a myth, otherwise the printer companies would still not
be selling the printer so cheaply. They continue to market in this manner
because the vast majority of people will go out and purchase the ink
cartridges rather than throw the printer away.
Click to expand...


How the bulk of the people behave in no way changes the fact that if the
printer is $39 and the ink is $49, it's a disposable printer--and plenty
of people will see it for what it is.
[/QUOTE]
 
Here's why:

Laser printers do not meet my needs both for size and for quality for
certain items I need to print, and secondly,

Maybe people (in fact, most) don't do what you suggest because they will
never be able to justify the expense of a $20,000 outlay (plus 8.9 cents
per print) for color prints,

Art
 
Oh really? Other than your ridiculous example of a $20K Xerox copier,
show me something in the consumer market where that's the case? Even
the consumer color and Black and white laser printers are now priced
using the same business model.

Art
The point is not for me but for ALL, and right now it's inconvenient because
of marketing mentality.
Click to expand...


It's not inconvenient at all. There are many, many machines on the
market whereby you pay what the machine's worth up front and pay little
for ink and maintenance as you use it.

So you have a choice. You aren't *forced* into buying a cheap machine
with expensive supplies. So why would you, if that's not what you want
to do?
[/QUOTE]
 
What an absolute red herring and you know it.

I don't want a commercial color photocopier when I'm looking for a
desktop inkjet, thank you... ever consider selling used cars for a living?

Art
The industry hardly accommodates. They choose and structure it as such.
Click to expand...


no, perhaps you weren't listening. You CAN buy expensive machines with
cheap supplies, and you CAN buy cheap machines with expensive supplies.

Your choice.

You've said you want to buy the expensive machine with the cheap
supplies, which you are more than welcome to do--the industry
accommodates that quite nicely. Why are you focusing on the fact that
the industry ALSO accommodates the cheap machine with expensive supplies?
[/QUOTE]
 
OK, you asked.

I want an inkjet printer that doesn't intentionally thwart refilling
using bulk inks via chips and cartridges designed not to be refilled,
that doesn't use waste ink pads that cannot easily be replaced by the
owner without dismantling the whole machine, that doesn't use
intentional methods to waste ink in order to keep it functioning, and
that doesn't charge the same for watered down inks as regular full
loaded inks.

Then, charge me the real cost of the printer plus reasonable profit, and
drop the profit levels on the ink supplies..

Art

How many examples of legislation to practice would you like me to point out
before understanding why legislation is necessary?
Click to expand...


Plenty. Tell us why we need legislation for this.

Tell us what the legislation would accomplish.

Tell us what's lacking in the market today that you want to buy, that
you can't.

I just explained it to you: you want an expensive machine with cheap
supplies, and you can buy that TODAY.

Why aren't you, then?

You can buy liquor by the case and get it cheap. But if you go into a
bar, a single drink costs you five bucks. Do we need legislation to
preven that, too?
[/QUOTE]
 
We need legislation, because the inkjet and consumer laser manufacturers
have developed a business model which is very environmentally wasteful
and hazardous to both ourselves and other planetary beings. Because this
type of business model is adding to consumption nd waste and global
climate change, and loss of landmass to dumps.

Art

How many examples of legislation to practice would you like me to point out
before understanding why legislation is necessary?
Click to expand...


Plenty. Tell us why we need legislation for this.

Tell us what the legislation would accomplish.

Tell us what's lacking in the market today that you want to buy, that
you can't.

I just explained it to you: you want an expensive machine with cheap
supplies, and you can buy that TODAY.

Why aren't you, then?

You can buy liquor by the case and get it cheap. But if you go into a
bar, a single drink costs you five bucks. Do we need legislation to
preven that, too?
[/QUOTE]
 
The majority of printer failure's is not mehanical or of the
electronic variety, it is a failure of the print head.

Are we saying all printer manufacturers are not aware of this problem
so why not make the head replaceable like Canon does, no they don't
wanna do that they would sooner you buy a new printer.

If they can churn printers out at a great rate of knots why not print
heads? Lets think about this for a minute, they churning new printers
out so they will have to churn new print heads out to match, yes I
know it's all about mass production.

Is it they would like us to buy a new printer once a year preferably
just after the warranty period?

Lets face facts there are many issues here with Epson, not only the
clogging issues that people are seeking help to solve, but why are
Epson getting 'snooty' about people making ink for their printers,
why so many law suites, I haven't heard of HP, Canon nor Lexmark
taking actions so why Epson in particular.

Long life heads is just a good old gimmick, whats the purpose of
making long life heads when the printer is only going to have a
lifespan of a couple of years, someone is now going to say but two
years is a long time, but its suppose to be 'lifetime' - can anyone
define that?

I notice they don't say gauranteed not to clog wth genuine ink.

Davy
 
Arthur Entlich said:
What an absolute red herring and you know it.

I don't want a commercial color photocopier when I'm looking for a
desktop inkjet,
Click to expand...

You might do! The first colour machine we had was an HP Deskjet 500c
(that sounds about right), and it was pretty lousy! We changed that for
an Epson Stylus 600 which was quite a decent machine, but too slow and
quite expensive, so we were using that in combination with an HP IIIP
for black only output. Then the A4 colour lasers finally broke down
through the £1,000 mark and we bought a QMS 2200 (now Konica-Minolta)
that was a much faster machine and I much preferred its output on plain
paper compared to the Epson. Some three years later the QMS wanted an
expensive fuser replaced and as prices had fallen further I replaced it
with a Xerox Phaser 8200 (solid ink) which is a very nice machine, which
we've had for just over two years now. Then last year I needed another
printer and went for a second hand 'commercial color photocopier' which
is a bit over the top, but fortunately I have room here for a quarter of
a ton of printer. A friend of mine would get one if he had space in the
lounge!

I know thats a bit much for the normal consumer, but if they are going
to be printing much they will invariably do better to look at the better
quality machines, although probably not to that extent.
 
I notice they don't say gauranteed not to clog wth genuine ink.

Davy
Click to expand...

They don't even tell you to clean the heads or use the printer
regularly... which would probably prevent a lot of warranty claims.
Strange business.
 
Lets face facts there are many issues here with Epson, not only the
clogging issues that people are seeking help to solve, but why are
Epson getting 'snooty' about people making ink for their printers,
why so many law suites, I haven't heard of HP, Canon nor Lexmark
taking actions so why Epson in particular.
Click to expand...


A few factors to consider here, in Epson's
defense:


1. Epson is the only desktop printer that
comes standard with pigment inks. The
resulting print longevity comes at a price.
Pigment inks are harder to deal with (in
a number of ways) than dye inks. If you
don't care about print longevity, don't
buy an Epson. It's that simple. Dye inks
will give you a lot less grief, in general.

2. Epson owns a small corner of the market
compared to HP. Most HP users will never
print anything other than text, web pages,
spreadsheets, etc. Epson, on the other
hand, has been actively courting the
photo-printer market for years. Epson
is more comparable to Canon than to HP,
but compared to Epson, Canon is still a
rank newbie in this market.

3. Compared to HP or Canon, the third-
party market for ink and media is huge.

4. There is (AFAIK) no 3rd-party ink
cartridge for HP that isn't made from a
recycled HP cartridge.


Just out of curiosity, what lawsuits are
you referring to? The reputable brands
(eg. Lyson, MIS, Mediastreet, WeInk) have
been making 3rd-party inks for Epsons since
day one, and I don't see any hints of these
guys being harassed or shut down.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
rafe b said:
A few factors to consider here, in Epson's
defense:


1. Epson is the only desktop printer that
comes standard with pigment inks. The
resulting print longevity comes at a price.
Pigment inks are harder to deal with (in
a number of ways) than dye inks. If you
don't care about print longevity, don't
buy an Epson. It's that simple. Dye inks
will give you a lot less grief, in general.

2. Epson owns a small corner of the market
compared to HP. Most HP users will never
print anything other than text, web pages,
spreadsheets, etc. Epson, on the other
hand, has been actively courting the
photo-printer market for years. Epson
is more comparable to Canon than to HP,
but compared to Epson, Canon is still a
rank newbie in this market.

3. Compared to HP or Canon, the third-
party market for ink and media is huge.

4. There is (AFAIK) no 3rd-party ink
cartridge for HP that isn't made from a
recycled HP cartridge.
Click to expand...

Rafe
You are almost correct, the only manufactured compatibles for HP printers are
for the older models (where patents have expired). These include #20, #29,#49
and some other cartridges. The newer cartridges are all covered by patent and
cannot be legally duplicated.
Tony
 
Davy,

Perhaps the situation in the UK is different than in North America, but
if you follow international news, there have been more lawsuits
regarding Lexmark and HP printer cartridges than Epson from my count.

The head in an Epson printer is probably the most expensive single
component in the printer. They aren't cheap in Canon's either.

Epson print heads last for numerous years and billions of dots, barring
clogging, they fail in a very small percentage of cases, and there were
some specific printer models they were more likely to fail in a number
of years ago. After clogs, mechanic issues are the main cause of failures.

Art
 
None of the printers you mention can produce photo quality images. They
come close, but none would be mistaken for a color photo, especially a
glossy photo. None can print properly on glossy paper to give a evenly
glossy surface.

The now cheaper color laser printers use the exact same business model
as inkjets, you pay for the consumables and get the printer basically
for free. Repair of a laser printer is usually more involved and more
costly than an inkjet.

The solid ink printers from Xerox are very interesting,, but have a
number of issues with the output (waxy, can't be laminated, can stain
other paper under pressure or rubbing, etc. Those printer are pretty
large, and consumable inks have limited sources. They need to be left
on continually or a large waste of ink is the result. However, for some
purposes they are a very good alternative.

Art
 
Art, thanks for the correction

Just that I had never heard of lawsuits against any other printe
manufacturer's, it's just that Epson seems to prevail in thes
matters or crossed my path (so to speak)

Print head prices is something I have never compared, but can accep
the fact that if it is a throw away society today, print head failur
can obvously be caused by many things including bad batches - happene
with semiconductor transistors once I know of, but print heads seem t
be a dominant failure

I am aware of pump failures and the tube coming off along with dockin
not capping properly but feel these are minor compared to the latter

Long life heads well they ain't long life heads if the user neglect
to let their tanks run dry or if air bubbles get into them and if th
owner decides not to use the printer for a while, no mention of wha
to do in these situations in the manual and to be fair neither wa
there in the Canon's

But of course this is the user's neglect and not the manufacture - i
ought to be mention though

So if one uses manufacturers ink, prints regularly and then problem
like these results who is to blame - no one

Dav
 
Davy said:
Art, thanks for the correction.

Just that I had never heard of lawsuits against any other printer
manufacturer's, it's just that Epson seems to prevail in these
matters or crossed my path (so to speak).

Print head prices is something I have never compared, but can accept
the fact that if it is a throw away society today, print head failure
can obvously be caused by many things including
Click to expand...
AFTERMARKET INK
 
Davy said:
The majority of printer failure's is not mehanical or of the
electronic variety, it is a failure of the print head.
Click to expand...
DUE TO THE USE OF AFTERMARKET INK.
Are we saying all printer manufacturers are not aware of this problem
so why not make the head replaceable like Canon does,
Click to expand...
BUT THE COST OF REPLAING THE HEAD IS NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE
 
Back
Top