Slashdot Mirror
Testing Cheaper Printer Ink
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Computer users world-wide spend $22 billion a year on ink cartridges, and the big companies are getting stingier with the amount of ink they are putting into each cartridge, the Wall Street Journal reports. Entrepreneurs are seeking a slice of that market by undercutting HP and Lexmark with ink prices 20% to 50% lower. The Journal tested do-it-yourself refill kits, cartridge retail outlets and replacement cartridges from online stores to find the best way to save money on ink refills. One major finding: The quality often wasn't as good as with the name-brand cartridges."
Too bad they haven't even mentioned Continuous Ink Flow Systems - CIFS replacement kits exist for most of the ink printers out there and you stop getting raped by the printer manufacturers. Why buy cartridges at all, when you can buy ink by the barrel?
From TFA: "The kit included three ink colors -- yellow, blue and magenta"
Not to be anal, but isn't it cyan, magenta, yello (CMY)? Blue is part of RGB. There is a difference IIRC.
I mean really, If I had started out with a blank slate and the intention of making a true jem of the worst part of the consumer electronics industry I would not be able to top what modern printer manufactures have come up with.
The previous Lexmark debacle was just another symptom. I refuse to believe that Ink for something that prints out my TPS reports is worth more than its weight in gold.
"The price of ink per milliliter from the big printer shops such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Lexmark International Inc. has been steadily rising, at about 1% a year"
Excuse me, but wtf? It is supposed to be cheaper to produce a product as time goes on, and dont give me that "they are innovating the way things are printed". There hasnt been any corresponding 1% increase in quality over the years.
Now things are coming to a big market (refillers, do it yourself or walkin/internet retailers) and personally I cannot wait till they gut the entire industry down to a reasonable profit margin. The only complaints of the article were "not as sharp as the new HP cartrige", personally I can live with that if it means not being overcharged the next time I goatse my neighbors mailbox.
There is truth in humor.
If your office is using inkjets, and you have more than 2 employees, then your IT or management are being extremely stupid.
Laser printing is the absolute cheapest with the Xerox color laser printers being the cheapest per page with their solid toner printers. We allow the sales department to print all they color they want as the Xerox is lower per page in full color than the HP4100dn Black and White, and yes I am counting printer cost+maintaince.
Inkjets are good for home use only or in LARGE format photo quality printing. Using then in an office is the absolutely stupidest thing in the world, you can recoup the cost of a $1900.00 Xerox color laser in less than 1 year with ink prices alone.... And yes, I know what I am talking about. We have a remote office of 3 employees and one manager, they were spending $225 a month in ink on two HP inkjets.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you're printing Photo's, you want the real stuff, no question about it.
I've been happy with Canon, and found that they have some of the cheapest per photo, and best looking prints around, if you use the right printer. (i850, i960)
Plus, their ink doesnt auto-expire.
... hi bingo
But, how do "clone" toners perform?
Not much.
A drum of ink, if memory serves, was around a couple of hundred dollars to synthesize. 55 gallons of purified, strained dye ink.
Now pigmented ink- thats far more expensive. The good ones are nano-milled which add (if memory serves) 300$ per kg to the production cost.
Ink is cheap.
The research, however, is very very expensive.
Do lasers get the same color fidelity as inkjets as small format photo quality inkjets? My understanding is that they do not. That's the main reason I've avoided color lasers.
Last I heard color laser printers were ok for color charts and graphs, but photo leave quite a bit to be desired. Of course, things could have changed since I last looked at color lasers . . .
Clone cartridges (at least for Lexmarks) SUCK.
They drop toner all over in the printers. I hate cleaning them up (but love charging the customers for it.). No one ever considers the extra cleanings that need to be done because of those cartridges.
I couldn't even count how many times a customer had a print quality issue (toner being dropped all over the pages or 'image ghosts' from dead image drums) that was fixed by a $110 service call and a new toner cartridge.
No one ever learns. Keeps me in business, though.
---
Read my journal.
bork bork bork!
Sure the quality goes down; HP and Lexmark cartridges are designed to wear out fast. But if you buy a printer with a permanent printhead and ink tanks, and buy good ink that's formulated for the printer (not "one-size-fits-all" generic ink) you can get very good quality indeed.
I have a Canon i970 photo printer. I have never bought an OEM cart, when the ones it came with ran out I started refilling. I have refilled each tank about 25 times now, and the quality is still fine.
Wake up people. HP and Lexmark inkjet printers are cheap crap designed to be a continuous source of income for the manufacturers. Pay > $50 for a printer and save $100's later.
Epson also has permanent heads, but they take other steps (bottom loading carts which are messy to fill and cause bubbles, and chipped cartridges) to make refilling a pain.