PC World: Epson Hits Online Ink Cartridge Retailers

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,125599,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,125599,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Seiko Epson has succeeded in getting four online retailers of printer ink cartridges to stop selling a number of third-party ink cartridges designed for use in Epson printers, the Japanese company says. The four retailers are in Germany and agreed in out of court settlements to stop selling the cartridges, which Seiko Epson asserts infringe upon its intellectual property. The action is the latest in a string of successful attempts by the Japanese company to stamp out sales of unlicensed ink cartridges in Europe and the U.S."</i><br /><br />Of course, they are willing to license these competitors to make their cartridges legitimate; but how much do you want to bet that the license fee will at least be equal to the profit that Seiko Epson makes on selling their own cartridges, making this a win/win for Seiko Epson.

[sundown]

I have mixed feelings on news like this. On one hand, if a patent was granted and they own the patent then they should have a right to protect it. On the other hand, as a consumer, it burns me up to pay $45 for one tiny little stinking ink cartridge when I could buy a quality clone for a third that price. And with no competition, we're all prepped to get stuck with whatever price the OEM thinks they can get away with charging.

[David Horn]

Ink and toner cartridges must be one of the modern world's biggest scams. We had a colour Laserjet 1600(?) at home, which after a year of printing declared that its toner cartridges were empty, and refused to print anything else.

I searched around on the internet and eventually paid an eBay seller for the information to reset the toner cartridges with a button combination. The printer ran for another year and a half, and when it finally expired (combination of low toner and imaging drum failure), we'd had two years of being able to print high quality full colour images.

We then discovered we could buy HP's latest colour Laserjet (2600) directly from their website for considerably less that what it would have cost us to replace the toner cartridges and imaging drum. Even better, this new one has a tape instead of a drum, and an option in the menu to turn off toner quantity monitoring. AND the image quality in photo prints in stunning.

[Jason Dunn]

Ink and toner cartridges must be one of the modern world's biggest scams...We then discovered we could buy HP's latest colour Laserjet (2600) directly from their website for considerably less that what it would have cost us to replace the toner cartridges and imaging drum.

Indeed, it's quite sick how expensive they make it. My mother-in-law bought an entry level Samsung printer after rebate for $70 CND ($60 USD). The cost for the toner/drum combo unit replacement? About $100 CND, more than the printer itself is worth. And the combo unit itself is a scam - a drum that needs replacing after only 3000 prints? The whole thing is frustrating, but what's worse is the collusion between all the printer companies!

Think about it - collusion is the only possible explanation as to why one company hasn't become aggressive with their ink prices. Imagine the advantage in the market if Canon suddenly dropped their ink prices by 50% - they'd capture a huge portion of the market because consumers would flock to their printers to save money. Has ANYONE dug and found their real cost of ink?

[sundown]

I could be wrong about this but I seem to remember having an inkjet printer 10 years ago, before they became super popular and I remember the ink cartridges costing far less than those today. I converted to lase for a while and then 4 or 5 years ago I bought one of the "new" photo inkjets. Everything was dandy until I went to replace an ink cartridge and about fell over from shock that a replacement cost as much as 2 tanks of gas (equivalent to 1 tank of gas today)!

[Jason Eaton]

Reading about this a year ago (and probably holds true today) is that the printers themselves actually cost more then what they sell them for. So while you can pick up the new printer for 70 bucks, it probably actually costs them 200 or so to make.

So they make it up on the ink.

I think what we see is a bad business plan versus some large plan amongst companies to make you pay a lot. Think of it as a twisted cell phone plan.

Get the device cheap and then lock in on service or consumables. However now the printer companies have a problem, consumers aren't willing to pay alot for printers anymore. The companies themselves are now locked in a bad business model that only gets worse. If they put out a higher price then their rivals then they lose a sale. Most buyers do not do a ROI on purchases but rather an immediate costs out of pocket.

What makes this even worse is that there is no lock in other then inconvience. Myself... I don't buy new ink, I just get a new printer. Far cheaper.

[Jason Dunn]

What makes this even worse is that there is no lock in other then inconvience. Myself... I don't buy new ink, I just get a new printer. Far cheaper.

Well, that might work on cheap (sub $80) printers, but certainly not on more expensive printers ($300+). Still, I get your meaning, and I think it's pretty sad. What a huge environmental waste! :( There's a bit of a deterrent where I live from doing that because there's an environment disposal fee when you buy most major computer gear - it's not much, perhaps $10 on a printer, but it does add up on the total cost.

[Jason Eaton]

... Well, that might work on cheap (sub $80) printers, but certainly not on more expensive printers ($300+)...

I hear ya.

I used to try and find the best photo printer in the old days but ended that quest. Just couldn't justify the costs. Once you pick up good photo paper, the cost of inks (and the intial cost of the printer), and the time... well it just wasn't worth it. In fact I am down to a black and white laser printer as toner is cheap and it is just enough to print e-mails, web reciepts, ect... the rest I send out or burn to disk and head out to a local Kodak machine and get some good quality prints.

[Chris Gohlke]

JohnSmith,

I'm with you. I no longer use a color printer at home. After a deal at staples, I got a laser printer and an extra toner cartridge for about $150. This will probably last me years, the cost per page is a lot cheaper, it is faster and the quality is better for most documents. For my photo printing needs, there is a Walgreens a half mile from my house that makes better prints than anything I'd do at home and for less money.

[pacemkr]

Chris Gohlke and JohnSmith, thats exactly what I do as well. Only I dont have a black and white laser printer (thinking of getting one), I just print w.e I need in college. Not very convinient, but since I'm already paying for the tuition might as well use the services.

For pictures, I burn w.e I need on a disk and go to a local Wallgreens. The quality is far better than I could get on an inkjet printer and it is MUCH cheaper than having to stack up on "glossy paper" thats worth more than gold by weight and ink cartridges that last 2 weeks.

[bradleyh]

To add insult to injury, the cartridges that the printers are being shipped with are getting smaller ("starter" cartridges, if you will).

This give more credibility to the argument that the printer price is lowered in the hopes that additional cartridge sales will make up lost revenue.