Printer Makers Are Crippling Cheap Ink Cartridges Via Bogus

[visualopsins]

Printer Makers Are Crippling Cheap Ink Cartridges Via Bogus 'Security Updates'

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa98ab/printer-makers-are-crippling-cheap-ink-cartridges-via-bogus-security-updates

EFF To Texas AG: Epson Tricked Its Customers With a Dangerous Fake Update

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eff-texas-ag-epson-tricked-its-customers-dangerous-fake-update

Letter to Texas AG about Epson printers

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-texas-ag-about-epson-printers

[tb_a]

To a certain extent understandable.
We already discussed before that usage of 3rd party ink is prone to ruin the print heads.
Why should Epson take the burden to deal with guarantee issues which are outside of their control?

[SkedAddled]

[tb_a]

Excerpt from Epsons Guarantee conditions:

"We will not repair or replace products if, in our opinion, the problem is due to:
.............
(iii) accessories, parts or consumables which are not Epson branded ............"

I think this makes it clear: The usage of 3rd party ink is at own risk and will end the warranty.

[visualopsins]

So at Epson repair they first do a DNA test of the ink. Lol.

Seriously they haven't an easy way to discern 3rd party ink was used, imho.

[visualopsins]

[cooltouch]

I've owned several Epson printers -- both inkjet and laser. The laser printers were good products, but the ink jet printers were simply awful. I used ONLY Epson inks in these printers and ALL of them suffered from clogged print heads within a year of purchase. It is almost impossible to clean an Epson's print heads once they've become clogged -- and I've tried, even buying products that were specifically designed to clean and unclog Epson print heads.

I threw away my last two Epson printers in disgust. I will never EVER buy another Epson printer product. I've been using a Canon Pixma happily for a couple of years now, with both Canon and aftermarket inks and with absolutely no sign of degradation at all. What a relief.

I hope the Texas AG reads Epson the riot act regarding their business practices.

Several years ago I read a comment -- I don't recall where anymore -- which stated that HP had gone from one of the world's best producers of electronic equipment to the world's largest seller of ink. This may no longer be the case, but at the time I felt that there was just something wrong with that.

[DConvert]

[visualopsins]

[tb_a]

Obviously in this case the opinions and experiences are quite different.

Despite that I had quite unhappy adventures with Epson printers and destroyed print heads from the usage of 3rd party ink as well I did give them another chance as finally the printing quality is still the decisive factor for me. It should also be noted that printing quality highly depends on used ink and paper. If original ink and paper is used some higher end Epson printers are simply excellent. From this point of view it doesn't make any sense at all to use any after market consumables.

I also understand that other printers are not as sensible when it comes to the usage of 3rd party ink. Nevertheless the usage of Canon printers with 3rd party ink within my family was not as successful as well; i.e. destroyed print heads after 1 to 2 years usage. Anyway, for high quality photo printing there are IMHO hardly any alternatives to Canon or Epson.

As already mentioned in another thread my consequence was the purchase of an Epson ET-7750 which comes already with 140 ml of original ink per color. That equals the Epson XP-900 (which is basically the same printer with different ink system) with apprx. 20 sets of ink cartridges. The price difference was incl. ink apprx. EUR 1.400.- in favor of the ET-7750. The 3-years warranty gives me some confidence that it will last at least that long. The open question is whether I really need 140 ml of ink within this period of time.

[visualopsins]

[cooltouch]

Thomas, the problem I'd have with an Epson like that is I don't use my colored inks that much and I'd be afraid it would commit suicide. Most of what I print out is B&W. I'd be afraid that that 140ml of ink would just go to waste as the ink in the capillary tubes and inside the heads themselves solidifies -- which is what happened with all my Epson printers. And as I mentioned above, once that happens, it is impossible to clean the heads. A couple of old HPs I owned, the heads were easily accessible and cleaned. Dunno about my Canon -- it's still printing color great when I have to print it, which is seldom. Also, the Canon folks are not uptight about the use of aftermarket inks. I was on the phone with one of their techs, trying to get my printer set up and working properly on my network and he mentioned offhand that, while they would prefer that I use Canon ink, it isn't a requirement.

Before I bought my Pixma i6820 I had the opportunity to buy a clean used professional model but I decided not to for two reasons: 1. I was afraid that I wouldn't use it enough for it to remain healthy and 2. the printer didn't include ink and the price of a set of ink cartridges for that printer would cost more than I ended up paying for my i6820!

[tb_a]

[dan_]

My experience with my Epson printer is not that bad.
I had a problem with my Epson SC-P600 but it was solved under guaranty. A print head died, but it was an electrical problem.
Being afraid of the problems with clogging printing heads I am always placing a humidifier inside the printer when I am not using it for longer periods and had no problems with the printing heads since.
I have tried 3rd party inks from Marrutt (UK) with my printer and, after calibration for my default papers, had nice results and no problems yet with them. I am using Marrutt inks for more than 1.5 years already.

However, the air humidity in my region seems to help, as well. I have a big A1 HP printer too and I haven't used it for ~2 years without placing any humidifier inside (but protected by a plastic cover). When I tested it after that period it worked without any problems (just a simple "clean the print heads" inner procedure).

[John Klein]

[RokkorDoctor]

Indeed hardly surprising.

They don't make money on the printers, but on the consumables (ink mostly, sometimes paper). It may feel "unfair" but if that is the business model then it is no surprise they try and protect their ink-revenue stream.

Both the cost and constant hassle of having to replace ink cartridges made me walk away from inkjet printers. Sometimes the "priming" procedure after replacing magenta would exhaust the last bit of yellow as (obviously) the priming of magenta would immediately "necessitate" ( ) a full head-clean operation which uses all inks. Then the priming of the replaced yellow would exhaust the last bit of cyan ( ). After replacing the cyan and another "necessary" full head-clean ( ), I could then finally print the one page I needed to print, the print job of which, you guessed it, finished with another full head-clean again ( ). Next day I need to print another single page which starts with a head-clean ( ), then print one-page, then another full head-clean ( ). Wait, now the black cartridge is empty! ( )

I swear, with all that head-cleaning I have wasted more ink into the diaper in the bottom of the printer than I used on the pages I printed. This was Canon by the way. And no, it wasn't me deciding all that head-cleaning was necessary, it was the firmware in the printer that did that. No way to avoid it.

So, after I realised that I actually don't do all that much "photo-quality" printing, and that very good quality colour laser printers had come down hugely in price, and shopping around you can get one with a set of full 5,000 page toner cartridges included, I said goodbye to my inkjet printer when the head died, and switched to colour laser. And three years in with still less than 50% of my toner used, I have no complaints whatsoever. No, it isn't 100% photo-quality, but it still equals the offset printing of my best quality photo books. And for text & documents it is vastly more convenient than an inkjet printer.

[philslizzy]

I've used ONLY Epson printers with 3rd party cartridges since 1996 and never had problems even with the newer chipped ones. My fourth Epson inkjet printer was bought in 2012 and runs as well today as it ever did. The latest software package is dated 2015. Ink cartridges for Epson have always been the cheapest too. The main reason for going with Epson originally.

My second Epson bought in 2000 developed a fault in 2001 but was exchanged immediately despite having third party cartridges installed.

Third party cartridges for the Epsons can be variable in quality though: Short life, sometimes not working (remedied by swapping the chip from an old cartridge) and patchy performance. But when the cartridges are costing 80p - £1 instead of £10 each it's no biggie for me.

The image quality is far greater using my inkjet printer than my Brother Laser printer. The Brother incidentally is probably the cheapest laser Printer to run with toners costing about £5 each.

[RokkorDoctor]