Manual Focus: Why ink-jet printer ink isn't a rip-off

[DPNow]

Do you really know how much your ink-jet printer costs to run? We bet you don't. And yet you probably know how many miles or kilometres your car will travel on a gallon or litre of fuel. So why is it that printer running costs are so difficult to obtain? In his latest Manual Focus column, DPNow.com editor, Ian Burley, says it's about time the industry provided proper running cost information to its ink-jet printer customers. If they don't, they will only have themselves to blame for the rise in the demand for cheaper third party inks.

More...

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by DPNow

Do you really know how much your ink-jet printer costs to run? We bet you don't. And yet you probably know how many miles or kilometres your car will travel on a gallon or litre of fuel. So why is it that printer running costs are so difficult to obtain? In his latest Manual Focus column, DPNow.com editor, Ian Burley, says it's about time the industry provided proper running cost information to its ink-jet printer customers. If they don't, they will only have themselves to blame for the rise in the demand for cheaper third party inks.

More...

Hi Ian

As you know I have strong feelings on this subject.

I will try not to go over old comparisons, but feel I must pick up on one or two points.

1. Cheaper the printer = more expensive ink, agreed, But do the printer manufacturers sell their expensive inks to these buyers, answer some. The buyer of a really cheap printer is by definition more likely to buy really cheap ink and the cheap and nasty variety at that, rather than the better quality third party suppliers let alone manufacturers high priced ink. These people are looking for the cheapest option there is. It’s the buyer of the better printers that are more likely to invest in the high priced inks, photographers for instance.
2. Investment & research again agreed, but so have many many other industries (I leave petrol out here that’s been argued to death) But still manage to give low competitive prices.
3. Should we know the true running cost, that goes without saying we shouldn’t even have to ask the question? It leads me to believe the manufacturers don’t want us to know, because most of us would be truly shocked.
4. Ink Printer a precision machine, certainly but no more precise than a DVD/CD writer and reader and look how cheap they are and are under constant development, with no ink as a support. print manufacturers make a profit all right, it may be modest and require high volume, but they do I’m certain.

There is probably some credence to your argument, but the manufacturers lay it on heavily, keep a little truth in the statement to carry the overall sales pitch, and Ian that’s just what it is, sales pitch and they are using people like yourself to do it for them.
If the press and media were critical of ink prices on a persistent level I bet they would start to get lower.

Patrick

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Hi Ian

As you know I have strong feelings on this subject.

I will try not to go over old comparisons, but feel I must pick up on one or two points.

1. Cheaper the printer = more expensive ink, agreed, But do the printer manufacturers sell their expensive inks to these buyers, answer some. The buyer of a really cheap printer is by definition more likely to buy really cheap ink and the cheap and nasty variety at that, rather than the better quality third party suppliers let alone manufacturers high priced ink. These people are looking for the cheapest option there is. It’s the buyer of the better printers that are more likely to invest in the high priced inks, photographers for instance.

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view. In many instances I'm sure you are right. Sadly, if the impact of people buying cheap third party inks is felt by the printer manufacturers, it only prevents them from giving serious printers like you and me from getting a better deal on decent inks from the manufacturer.

2. Investment & research again agreed, but so have many many other industries (I leave petrol out here that’s been argued to death) But still manage to give low competitive prices.

I think the ink-jet printer phenomenon is almost unique - very hard to find a fair comparison with something else.

3. Should we know the true running cost, that goes without saying we shouldn’t even have to ask the question? It leads me to believe the manufacturers don’t want us to know, because most of us would be truly shocked.

I completely agree that people are likely to be shocked at the true cost of printing, because it ain't cheap and so many people seam to be under the illusion that it must be cheap.

Let's take the analogy and turn it around - how many third party ink manufacturers also offer a cheap alternative third party printer?

4. Ink Printer a precision machine, certainly but no more precise than a DVD/CD writer and reader and look how cheap they are and are under constant development, with no ink as a support. print manufacturers make a profit all right, it may be modest and require high volume, but they do I’m certain.

I disagree. All an optical disc mechanism does is spin a disc and place a laser pickup over the correct position on the disc. It's certainly a precision device, but electronically and mechanically very simple. A printer is a much more complicated device, managing the flow of several liquids through a series of hundreds of microscopic pumps. They are also physically larger, have several motors and require relatively complex software to be operated. Many now have a colour LCD screen and a fairly sophisticated user interface.

There is probably some credence to your argument, but the manufacturers lay it on heavily, keep a little truth in the statement to carry the overall sales pitch, and Ian that’s just what it is, sales pitch and they are using people like yourself to do it for them.

If you think I am somehow operating as a mouthpiece for the printer industry, then either you haven't read what I wrote or I have failed to get the message across.

If the press and media were critical of ink prices on a persistent level I bet they would start to get lower.

Patrick

I believe I raised the point that the current economics of printer and inks pricing punishes those who use printers more than the average. I was also critical of the industry for not being more helpful and open in providing useful data on running costs.

My fundamental points are:

1. It's almost certainly a false economy to buy third party inks. There may be some exceptions to this and your CIS set-up may be one of them, but Epson believes that if photographers selected a printer that was designed for their level and kind of use in the first place, CIS would, in the long run, be a less competitive option. They argue that the complexity, inconvenience and risk of setting up CIS on a printer that wasn't really designed for heavy duty professional printing is questionable. They also feel theur inks are superior anyway, but I would agree that the differences are much smaller than with cheap consumer inks.

They would argue that a heavier duty, larger format printer with more economical ink cartridges would be a better solution overall. Of course that's a bigger all-in investment at the start.

With cheap consumer inks - certainly for printing photos you'd want to keep, I could not in any honesty recommend any third party inks. I have no proof at all that third party ink manufacturers have the required engineering and chemistry skills needed to produce inks that are comparable to manufacturer inks. With regard to re-using cartridges with integrated print heads, that is completely unacceptable to me, anyway.

2. I strongly feel that one big reason why people are so keen to save pennies by buying cheap inks is that there is far too little information from the industry about the true cost of photo printing and why it costs what it does. It's not easy to produce this information, but it's perfectly possible. It would help rebuild some trust that some people may have lost.

3. I also feel strongly that people should know that the more the third party ink industry grows, the less chance there is of people wanting to use the best inks for their printers will have of getting a better deal on their inks. A lot of people are buying cheap inks and getting bad results and either not caring or transferring the blame to the printer manufacturers and it's the rest of us that will be affected by such people.

Ian

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Ian

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view. In many instances I'm sure you are right. Sadly, if the impact of people buying cheap third party inks is felt by the printer manufacturers, it only prevents them from giving serious printers like you and me from getting a better deal on decent inks from the manufacturer.



I think the ink-jet printer phenomenon is almost unique - very hard to find a fair comparison with something else.



I completely agree that people are likely to be shocked at the true cost of printing, because it ain't cheap and so many people seam to be under the illusion that it must be cheap.

Let's take the analogy and turn it around - how many third party ink manufacturers also offer a cheap alternative third party printer?



I disagree. All an optical disc mechanism does is spin a disc and place a laser pickup over the correct position on the disc. It's certainly a precision device, but electronically and mechanically very simple. A printer is a much more complicated device, managing the flow of several liquids through a series of hundreds of microscopic pumps. They are also physically larger, have several motors and require relatively complex software to be operated. Many now have a colour LCD screen and a fairly sophisticated user interface.



If you think I am somehow operating as a mouthpiece for the printer industry, then either you haven't read what I wrote or I have failed to get the message across.



I believe I raised the point that the current economics of printer and inks pricing punishes those who use printers more than the average. I was also critical of the industry for not being more helpful and open in providing useful data on running costs.

My fundamental points are:

1. It's almost certainly a false economy to buy third party inks. There may be some exceptions to this and your CIS se may be one of them, but Epson believes that if photographers selected a printer that was designed for their level and kind of use in the first place, CIS would, in the long run, be a less competitive option. They argue that the complexity, inconvenience and risk of setting up CIS on a printer that wasn't really designed for heavy duty professional printing is questionable. They also feel theur inks are superior anyway, but I would agree that the differences are much smaller than with cheap consumer inks.

They would argue that a heavier duty, larger format printer with more economical ink cartridges would be a better solution overall. Of course that's a bigger all-in investment at the start.

With cheap consumer inks - certainly for printing photos you'd want to keep, I could not in any honesty recommend any third party inks. I have no proof at all that third party ink manufacturers have the required engineering and chemistry skills needed to produce inks that are comparable to manufacturer inks. With regard to re-using cartridges with integrated print heads, that is completely unacceptable to me, anyway.

2. I strongly feel that one big reason why people are so keen to save pennies by buying cheap inks is that there is far too little information from the industry about the true cost of photo printing and why it costs what it does. It's not easy to produce this information, but it's perfectly possible. It would help rebuild some trust that some people may have lost.

3. I also feel strongly that people should know that the more the third party ink industry grows, the less chance there is of people wanting to use the best inks for their printers will have of getting a better deal on their inks. A lot of people are buying cheap inks and getting bad results and either not caring or transferring the blame to the printer manufacturers and it's the rest of us that will be affected by such people.

Ian

Of course manufacturers are going to say their inks are better than third party inks, that is to be expected. The truth can be something else.

You touch on the one concern I have of using CIS, will the extra weight of the tubing prove in the long term a problem, Time will tell.

As to there being less chance of lower priced inks from manufacturers because of cheap third party ink, well surly market forces play a part here. Evidently manufacturers are happy with their market share. I still firmly believe that lower priced inks from the main players is possible, and will happen when third party inks start to dent manufacturers market share sufficiently.

It would be very interesting to know how many gallons of ink are sold per day by each of the main players, compared with the best of the third party suppliers.

Patrick

[JSR]

Ultimately the old OEM vs 'compatible' debate could be solved by the manufacturers tomorrow if they wished. All the likes of Epson et al have to do is to sell their inks to all markets at the same low prices that they charge in Japan.

If the prices were that cheap, most compatibles just wouldn't be worth buying. The only third-parties that would remain on the market are those that have a valid part to play - CIS for high-volume users, and alternative inksets, neither of which are catered for by OEM.

The OEM manufacturers may say that charging less for inks will cut their profit margin, but that's a flawed argument. If a photo costs 50% less to print, most people would print twice as many photos. That means the actual amount of profit would remain the same, they'd just sell more ink. In addition to that, the OEMs would also sell twice as much paper because customers are printing twice as many photos. The profits from paper sales would double.

Customers would get cheaper prints, OEMs would make more money, cheapy compatibles that ruin printers would be driven out of the market. Everybody wins.

But no, OEMs would rather sell at high prices, keep us all in the dark, then sue anyone and everybody thus fostering bad relations. No one prints because it's too expensive, those that do get fading photos and ruined printheads, OEMs argue with everyone, third party sales prosper. Only third party ink suppliers win. Illogical.

Still, since when has logic ever had anything to do with the printer business?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JSR

Ultimately the old OEM vs 'compatible' debate could be solved by the manufacturers tomorrow if they wished. All the likes of Epson et al have to do is to sell their inks to all markets at the same low prices that they charge in Japan.

If the prices were that cheap, most compatibles just wouldn't be worth buying. The only third-parties that would remain on the market are those that have a valid part to play - CIS for high-volume users, and alternative inksets, neither of which are catered for by OEM.

The OEM manufacturers may say that charging less for inks will cut their profit margin, but that's a flawed argument. If a photo costs 50% less to print, most people would print twice as many photos. That means the actual amount of profit would remain the same, they'd just sell more ink. In addition to that, the OEMs would also sell twice as much paper because customers are printing twice as many photos. The profits from paper sales would double.

Customers would get cheaper prints, OEMs would make more money, cheapy compatibles that ruin printers would be driven out of the market. Everybody wins.

But no, OEMs would rather sell at high prices, keep us all in the dark, then sue anyone and everybody thus fostering bad relations. No one prints because it's too expensive, those that do get fading photos and ruined printheads, OEMs argue with everyone, third party sales prosper. Only third party ink suppliers win. Illogical.

Still, since when has logic ever had anything to do with the printer business?

OK, let's take your argument: HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc., all halved their ink prices tomorrow. You are a third party ink vendor. How long would it take you to reach for the phone to get your lawyer to slap an unfair practice injunction on the manufacturers?

Anyway, as the third party ink manufacturers have massive margins anyway, it would simply mean cheaper prices from them too. Good for us, I guess, but doesn't really address the issue of people falling foul of poor quality ink.

Ian

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

[JSR]

Originally Posted by lumix

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

I'd be interested to know which papers they rated so badly. It's fairly universally agreed that Epson Premium papers is one of the best there is. Can't get good paper for your Canon? Use Epson Premium. Can't get good paper for your HP? Use Epson Premium. You'll find similar posts on forums all over the internet.

What kind of prices were they touting to suggest Epson is so expensive on paper? I'm still working through stocks of Epson Premium I bought when 6"x4" was 6p per sheet and A4 was 26p per sheet. How much cheaper do they need to be?

A photo out of my Epson Picturemate using Epson inks and Epson paper costs 12.5p. How much cheaper is cheap paper going to make the print?

Epson Premium is far away from being the "worst paper at the highest price". That must have been one heck of a blinkered article to come to that conclusion. They didn't get their results from the same HP-biased company that PC Pro employed a few months ago did they?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JSR

Epson Premium is far away from being the "worst paper at the highest price". That must have been one heck of a blinkered article to come to that conclusion. They didn't get their results from the same HP-biased company that PC Pro employed a few months ago did they?

Wasn't that Ron's opinion rather than the article?

How was PC Pro HP-biased?

Ian

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

How was PC Pro HP-biased?

I noticed it first when they did a printer review a few months back and got entirely different results for the Epson R1800 than they'd had on the review published a year earlier. Stated cost-per-print and nozzle clogging problems were bizarrely astronomical in the extreme.

I discussed this on another forum and someone noticed that PC Pro had "compared notes" with Spencer Labs, and that the tests done were purposefully biased against Epson. Their testing involved the frequent removal, weighing, and replacement of cartridges. Anyone knows that this isn't a real world test and that, for example, each replacement of a cartridge will see Epson printers purge all ink lines and frequent replacement over a short period is likely to cause air in the lines and nozzle blocking. These are things that the normal real world user would not experience to this degree.

It turns out, when you check out the Spencer Lab website, that they are practically HP shills. Almost every test they've done is "HP vs the world" and almost every one has HP out on top of the pile. Some "tests" are so ridiculous that they're laughable - a test comparing an HP business inkjet with the Epson C84 (the cheapest of the cheap), for example. That's not even a real test because of course HP are going to win on that test. And you have HP vs Dell - with Dell being Lexmark in all but name, anything would work out cheaper to run so, again, of course HP will be cheaper. It's not a test worth doing.

If PC Pro really got the same results as such obvious shills, then the tests were certainly biased against non-HP printers. I would hope that PC Pro were just naive, but such a respected magazine should not be duped so easily.

Real world running costs, and experiences of printing, when using the R1800 is more akin to their original review published some months earlier - not the new biased comparison review that only served to give the awards to HP.

A similar review recently on colour laser printers looked equally suspicious, although I have no real world experience upon which to base those suspicions - just statistics.

PC Pro were once a very respected magazine and I had a regular subscription with them. Not any more. I don't buy any regular computer magazine now, because I don't know if any of them can be trusted to be impartial any more.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by lumix

Did someone mention paper? Another ripoff by Epsom and the like. In a review in What Digital Camera Epsom paper got just 87% rating and were the most expensive. All the others with higher rating were from suppliers that do not manufacture printers. Stay loyal to Epsom, by the worst paper at the highest price, they are using the profit to our benefit ie research and development for future printers. Believe that and you will believe anything.

Ron, this What Digital Camera article? Did you catch the name of the author by any chance?

It's EpsoN, by the way - and in any case, why do you think Epson paper is "the worst"?

Ian

Originally Posted by Ian

Ron, this What Digital Camera article? Did you catch the name of the author by any chance?

It's EpsoN, by the way - and in any case, why do you think Epson paper is "the worst"?

Ian

OK the reviewer was Ian Burley. The review was for Fine Art inkjet paper. Papers tested da Vinci, Epson, Hahnemuhle, Permajet, Fotospeed, Somerset. Epson and Somerset 87%, Fotospeed 90%, the others all got 91%. In the review of Epson paper, reviewer stated "However, there are other similar papers from, for example, Hahnemuhle, da Vinci, Fotospeed and Permajet that are probably just as good, but for a lower price." Epson price per sheet A3 £2.78. The others prices ranged from £1.00 per sheet to 76p for A4. As for standard every day paper, glossy, matt, or whatever I find Rymands paper just as good. Cost wise less than half Epson prices.

PS I forgot to mention the Value rating. Epson was the only one to get 16 rating. The others 17 to 19. That makes me think Epson was the worst Paper.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by lumix

OK the reviewer was Ian Burley. The review was for Fine Art inkjet paper. Papers tested da Vinci, Epson, Hahnemuhle, Permajet, Fotospeed, Somerset. Epson and Somerset 87%, Fotospeed 90%, the others all got 91%. In the review of Epson paper, reviewer stated "However, there are other similar papers from, for example, Hahnemuhle, da Vinci, Fotospeed and Permajet that are probably just as good, but for a lower price." Epson price per sheet A3 £2.78. The others prices ranged from £1.00 per sheet to 76p for A4. As for standard every day paper, glossy, matt, or whatever I find Rymands paper just as good. Cost wise less than half Epson prices.

Just in case it isn't really obvious, I wrote that article

None of these papers were 'poor' - and in any case they were 'fine art' papers and not your usual consumer papers.

The month before I reviewed consumer papers and Tesco's own brand 'premium quality' glosst paper was singled out for some very serious criticism. I didn't review Epson Premium Glossy paper as the brief was to review third party papers only, but it would have been rated very high. It's a superb paper, though it's not particularly cheap (though not the most expensive, either).

Ian

Ian

Originally Posted by Ian

Just in case it isn't really obvious, I wrote that article

None of these papers were 'poor' - and in any case they were 'fine art' papers and not your usual consumer papers.

The month before I reviewed consumer papers and Tesco's own brand 'premium quality' glosst paper was singled out for some very serious criticism. I didn't review Epson Premium Glossy paper as the brief was to review third party papers only, but it would have been rated very high. It's a superb paper, though it's not particularly cheap (though not the most expensive, either).

Ian

Ian

Ian I have read many articles by yourself, and enjoyed doing so. The fact that it was for Fine Art Paper was very important. It's the likes of those that frequent this forum, what I would describe as serious photographers, that would use such a paper. So your findings in that review apply to most of the members here. I have not the means to test as you did, so can only be influenced by your review.

[JSR]

Originally Posted by Ian

OK, let's take your argument: HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc., all halved their ink prices tomorrow. You are a third party ink vendor. How long would it take you to reach for the phone to get your lawyer to slap an unfair practice injunction on the manufacturers?

Anyway, as the third party ink manufacturers have massive margins anyway, it would simply mean cheaper prices from them too. Good for us, I guess, but doesn't really address the issue of people falling foul of poor quality ink.

Ian

Okay, so let Epson keep their prices high. Let them rip-off customers based on where they happen to live. Fine. So just how do you stop cheap inks that damage printers? If the solution isn't for Epson to lower their prices, what is it?

Standing on a soap box preaching "don't use cheap, use OEM" isn't going to convince anyone. If Epson and the others want people to stop using third party inks, the only way to do it is to lower prices and compete with them.

There's no middle ground. People buy cheap because cheap appeals to the wallet. Epson will only stop people buying cheap by selling cheap.