A
Andrew Mayo
Recently my brand-new Epson C86 failed to print yellow. Although I had
used Epson cartridges (in fact the first set, supplied with the
printer), it just failed after 6 weeks.
Now I have to say Epson were very good; they have set up a bunch of
accredited repair centres and if the printer can't be fixed in 30
minutes they'll give you a new one.
But when I dropped the printer in the first question was 'Have you
been using genuine Epson cartridges?'. Well, yes, I had. Hmmmm. Good
thing too, I supposed. If not, maybe my warranty was toast!. Geez,
better be careful about that!.
When I picked up the replacement I asked a bit more about using
Epson-compatible cartridges. Just out of curiosity. The response was
'You'll ruin your printhead. We get three or more printers in every
week where the printheads have been ruined by non-Epson cartridges'
'Really', I said innocently. 'Does that mean that the printer wouldn't
be covered under warranty?'.
The guy looked uncomfortable 'No, they'll replace the printer under
warranty'. The subject was clearly closed at that stage, so I didn't
pursue the issue.
Now, there are some interesting (conflicting) conclusions to be drawn
from this
1. ALL Non-Epson cartridges contain vile inferior ink which destroys
precision Epson printheads. Ok, if so, how come Epson honour their
warranty commitments?.
2. Epson are being a bit economical with the truth because they want
you to buy their more expensive cartridges. Hence they scare you into
sticking with their cartridges and train their repair agents to take a
tough line questioning people, then act all nice about it 'well, in
this case we'll make an exception, but don't do it again!'
3. SOME Non-Epson cartridges are junk. Well, then why are Epson not
warning retail outlets about these products. Why aren't the good
non-Epson cartridges able to say 'guaranteed compatible' or something
to ensure you can be confident they won't wreck your printer. I mean,
an independent lab could certify that your inks are compatible and
free of particulate contamination, for instance, right?.
The cartridges I had considered using are from OfficeWorld, who are a
very large and reputable chain. I plan to ask them about these
cartridges and see what their official response is.
Meanwhile, can anyone else here shed light on this rather peculiar
situation. Printer company sells printers, warns against third-party
cartridges but, strangely, fixes broken printers even when they are
damaged (allegedly) by said third-party cartridges.
I find this odd. If my Ford got filled with, say, contaminated crap
oil and then the engine failed under warranty, would Ford say 'oh,
well, you need to use genuine Ford oil, and this oil is junk.. but,
er, we'll repair it under warranty, and, er... if you do it again
we'll STILL repair it under warranty.'
Somehow I don't think so.
If I go into Halfords and I buy 5 litres of 30/40 oil, I'm quite
confident that Ford aren't gonna tell me that my warranty is toast
because I bought third party oil. (actually, legally I think they
can't do that, which may explain Epson's odd behaviour).
Now I know printer ink is (supposedly) much more high-tech.
Supposedly. I don't know how true that is. I'm guessing that reputable
third-party ink vendors take great care over their formulations and
ensure that they test them thoroughly and perform spectroscopic
analysis etc. After all, being sued by a bunch of furious users with
dead printers could be kinda expensive, right?.
At present I'm becoming quite convinced that the printer market badly
needs some kind of government regulation, in the same way that the car
parts market was regulated. This was to stop car manufacturers
stamping down on third-party parts vendors, but we're seeing some very
shady practices in the printer market.
I understand that companies are giving the damn printers away and
planning on making a killing from all the consumables they'll be
selling you, but to be honest, I don't think this is a sustainable
proposition. Apart from deliberately pricing replacement parts so
printers will be junked, rather than repaired (Canon), other vendors
have tried suing third-party suppliers under the DMCA (Lexmark).
used Epson cartridges (in fact the first set, supplied with the
printer), it just failed after 6 weeks.
Now I have to say Epson were very good; they have set up a bunch of
accredited repair centres and if the printer can't be fixed in 30
minutes they'll give you a new one.
But when I dropped the printer in the first question was 'Have you
been using genuine Epson cartridges?'. Well, yes, I had. Hmmmm. Good
thing too, I supposed. If not, maybe my warranty was toast!. Geez,
better be careful about that!.
When I picked up the replacement I asked a bit more about using
Epson-compatible cartridges. Just out of curiosity. The response was
'You'll ruin your printhead. We get three or more printers in every
week where the printheads have been ruined by non-Epson cartridges'
'Really', I said innocently. 'Does that mean that the printer wouldn't
be covered under warranty?'.
The guy looked uncomfortable 'No, they'll replace the printer under
warranty'. The subject was clearly closed at that stage, so I didn't
pursue the issue.
Now, there are some interesting (conflicting) conclusions to be drawn
from this
1. ALL Non-Epson cartridges contain vile inferior ink which destroys
precision Epson printheads. Ok, if so, how come Epson honour their
warranty commitments?.
2. Epson are being a bit economical with the truth because they want
you to buy their more expensive cartridges. Hence they scare you into
sticking with their cartridges and train their repair agents to take a
tough line questioning people, then act all nice about it 'well, in
this case we'll make an exception, but don't do it again!'
3. SOME Non-Epson cartridges are junk. Well, then why are Epson not
warning retail outlets about these products. Why aren't the good
non-Epson cartridges able to say 'guaranteed compatible' or something
to ensure you can be confident they won't wreck your printer. I mean,
an independent lab could certify that your inks are compatible and
free of particulate contamination, for instance, right?.
The cartridges I had considered using are from OfficeWorld, who are a
very large and reputable chain. I plan to ask them about these
cartridges and see what their official response is.
Meanwhile, can anyone else here shed light on this rather peculiar
situation. Printer company sells printers, warns against third-party
cartridges but, strangely, fixes broken printers even when they are
damaged (allegedly) by said third-party cartridges.
I find this odd. If my Ford got filled with, say, contaminated crap
oil and then the engine failed under warranty, would Ford say 'oh,
well, you need to use genuine Ford oil, and this oil is junk.. but,
er, we'll repair it under warranty, and, er... if you do it again
we'll STILL repair it under warranty.'
Somehow I don't think so.
If I go into Halfords and I buy 5 litres of 30/40 oil, I'm quite
confident that Ford aren't gonna tell me that my warranty is toast
because I bought third party oil. (actually, legally I think they
can't do that, which may explain Epson's odd behaviour).
Now I know printer ink is (supposedly) much more high-tech.
Supposedly. I don't know how true that is. I'm guessing that reputable
third-party ink vendors take great care over their formulations and
ensure that they test them thoroughly and perform spectroscopic
analysis etc. After all, being sued by a bunch of furious users with
dead printers could be kinda expensive, right?.
At present I'm becoming quite convinced that the printer market badly
needs some kind of government regulation, in the same way that the car
parts market was regulated. This was to stop car manufacturers
stamping down on third-party parts vendors, but we're seeing some very
shady practices in the printer market.
I understand that companies are giving the damn printers away and
planning on making a killing from all the consumables they'll be
selling you, but to be honest, I don't think this is a sustainable
proposition. Apart from deliberately pricing replacement parts so
printers will be junked, rather than repaired (Canon), other vendors
have tried suing third-party suppliers under the DMCA (Lexmark).