Firstly, let me state that even long before Epson incorporated any chips
in their cartridges, etc, they had a procedure for replacing "outdated"
ink cartridges. It isn't that the cartridges have a date built into
them or that they won't work past any specific date, it is just that
Epson suggests their inks after opening (the older dye cartridges, at
least) should be used up after some set time (I believe it was 6 months)
to prevent ink thickening or otherwise degrading print quality.
Now to the bigger picture. Epson only has the best interest of it's
clients and users in mind in the different technologies it has
incorporated. They want to prevent problems with 3rd party inks from
degrading print quality, they want to offer a good methods of monitoring
the amount of ink in the cartridges, and allow people to remove and
replace cartridges mid-stream and still know just how much ink is left.
They also designed the newer cartridges to be fairly airtight to prevent
drying out and oxidation and went to individual ink color cartridges to
help save the consumer money.
All the problems people speak of are unfortunately side effects of these
ingenious and helpful designs, and anyone who places a negative slant on
Epson's motives is simply malicious or paranoid.
And....
If you believe this, I suggest you take note of the date of this
posting. (April 1st - April Fools' Day.
===============================
Lexmark, HP and Epson, and I'll venture to guess Canon, as soon as they
retain enough market share (if laws don't force all of them to do
otherwise) all have one basic reason reason behind their many schemes
and fancy electronics. It's to sell ink, because, they no longer can
make reasonable profits on their printer sales, due to the business
model they ascribe to. It stinks. It creates waste, it's an
environmental nightmare, and it should be illegal, and hopefully soon
will be.
People should be paying more legitimate prices for printers with better
builds that will last longer. The print quality over the last 5 years
has not changed markedly enough that people should need to replace their
printers every year or two. I still use my second generation Epson
printer and a friend and my brother still use the first generation Epson
color printer. Yes, they are slow, and the print quality has been
improved upon, but considering they are nearly 10 years old, that is to
be expected. However, they both still work as well as they did when
purchased. So, there is no question that Epson and any inkjet printer
manufacturer can make a printer that lasts, they just cost a bit more to
produce. They can also produce ink cartridges without chips, dates, or
non-refillable technologies. They can make printers with removable
waste ink bottoms or pads, and they can make the heads less likely to
clog, also. All it takes is the will of purchasers to refuse to buy
what we are being told is the only way it can be done.
I do not own any Epson printer which requires a cartridge with a chip,
and I don't know that I ever will. I'm hoping Epson will come to their
senses eventually, and dump that technology. It creates unnecessary
problems with little benefit to the buyer who pays for it. I am
encouraging legislators and even Canada Competition Bureau to legislate
refillable cartridges for all inkjet printers sold in Canada, as the EU has.
However, having said that, right now, Epson printers still provide the
best quality result in terms of image and ink options for many
applications. I like Canon as a company. They are innovative and their
film and digital cameras are both designed and built well. Their inkjet
products were a disaster, IMHO, prior to the "i" series. They had major
design flaws, which they came a long way toward correcting. They still
need help in several areas: head design, in terms of burn out (or
cheaper replacement heads so people don't dump the whole printer when
the head fails), ink formulation (improvement so they have better
permanence), media (wider selection and better costs), and color
management (more robust and accurate print drivers).
If they do those things, and still keep their printers free of the
protection rackets used by other inkjet manufacturers, I may well have a
Canon as my next printer.
Art
