Clogged Black on i560

"Nelson" wrote in message
...
"PC Medic" wrote in
news:RWepe.86720$yV4.85465@okepread03:


"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
Nelson wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in
:
PC Medic wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...


Frank wrote:


measekite wrote:



Canon thinks people like you are fools.


Yon may think that Canon thinks people like Burt et al are fools.
But as usual you'd be dead wrong.
"Think" is operative word here.
For sure, Canon KNOWS that people like you are the real fools who
are willing to pay for their very overpriced OEM inks and keep
their execs in very high paying salaries and great bonuses.
They depends on fools like you.
Without fools like you, who are willing to pay at least 4 times
as much for their OEM inks as compared to 3rd's, they'd have to
start discounting their overpriced OEM inks, or take a pay cut.
But as long as there are fools like you, those great salaries
plus raises and bonuses just keep on coming.
I do hope they send you a wonderful Xmas thank you card every
year. Fool!
Frank

Also, let's not forget that it's the people buying OEM ink that
keeps the price of inkjet printers low. For that, I am greatful
to them. Under the current senario I get inexpensive printers AND
inexpensive ink. This is why I don't mind that measekite buys,
and promotes the use of, OEM ink. It's good for my bank account.



I would love to here the logic you base that statement on.

Consider it your homework assignment to figure it out.




The best line of the night! PCMedic seems to be having math
addition problems. I too thank Measekite for helping keep the cost
of printers low by his ever continuing purchases of the OEM cash cow
inks. Canon thanks him too. It's a fine line between a sucker and
a loyal OEM buyer of inks, isn't it.

A very fine line. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the
game plan of the inkjet printer manufacturers. The first clue is
that for many printer models the user can buy a NEW printer for less
than he could buy a set of replacement cartridges. I had better stop
now. I don't want to make that homework assignment too easy.

And any one with business knowledge is quite aware that what may seem
to be the most obvious is sometimes far from the facts.
Hardware is reaching its limitation where printers are concerned. Ink
formulation improvements need to catch up to match possible hardware
improvements which means R&D costs shift.





Need I remind you that 2 sets of refills costs more than a new iP4000.

Translated, one purchased set of refills cancells the free set that
comes with a new printer. Now the second purchased set costs more than
the printer! So consider THAT your first lesson in business knowledge.


Keep in mind while you are using these examples that many of the
manufactures do not provide
'standrard' cartridges with the printer, but instead a partially filled
starter cartridge.
And purchasing a set of refills does not 'cancel' the savings of the free
set, you still were able to print xxx pages without the need to purchase
ink. As for a set of inks costing more than the printer, depends on how
cheap a printer you buy.
Will the purchase of replacement inks eventually exceed the cost of the
printer, sure it will, but then this is no different than many products that
require consumables to continue operating. And yes, the manufacture controls
both in many cases.

Add on question: Does it cost you more than half the cost of a new
vehicule to fill it with gas to make it move? Should it be any
different with ink? Is ink 20 times more expensive to manufacture?


Than gasoline, different product, packaging and marketing so more than just
manufacture costs to consider.
Than the printer, see my earlier statement.

Automobile R&D & advertising is far costlier than the few guys working
on your next printer. I read that OEM ink sales are in the billions
annually.


When you consider the number out there purchasing, and if you are including
ALL brands, this is close.
Then again, Oil companies are in the tens of billions as are other products.

And, Canon printheads are designed to fail (why else the easy take out
feature), therefore becoming a new source on revenue for Canon. A less
than $5 part that brings in close to $100 for Canon. A cash grab all
around, nothing less.


Less than $5 huh, there goes any credibility of business analysis you had.
And this whole 'designed to fail' argument you see from time to time is
getting boring.
If you think about it (even just a little teeny bit) you can figure out why
they are "easy to take out".
A smart design all around, nothing more.

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
news
Snip

Also, let's not forget that it's the people buying OEM ink that keeps
the price of inkjet printers low. For that, I am greatful to them.
Under the current senario I get inexpensive printers AND inexpensive
ink. This is why I don't mind that measekite buys, and promotes the
use of, OEM ink. It's good for my bank account.


I would love to here the logic you base that statement on.

Consider it your homework assignment to figure it out.




The best line of the night! PCMedic seems to be having math addition
problems. I too thank Measekite for helping keep the cost of printers
low by his ever continuing purchases of the OEM cash cow inks. Canon
thanks him too. It's a fine line between a sucker and a loyal OEM buyer
of inks, isn't it.

A very fine line. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the game
plan of the inkjet printer manufacturers. The first clue is that for
many printer models the user can buy a NEW printer for less than he could
buy a set of replacement cartridges. I had better stop now. I don't
want to make that homework assignment too easy.


And any one with business knowledge is quite aware that what may seem to
be the most obvious is sometimes far from the facts.
Hardware is reaching its limitation where printers are concerned. Ink
formulation improvements need to catch up to match possible hardware
improvements which means R&D costs shift.

I'll make this real simple. What costs Canon more to manufacture, a
printer or a set of ink cartridges? Now if you say the printer then we
just need to stop the discussion here because you are blatantly ignoring
reality.

Unfortunately, the 'reality is that it is NOT that simple.
There is much more that goes into the price of an ink tank than the
manufacturing cost of that tank.
There are also costs associated with distribution (to include packaging,
warehousing, shipping, etc), there is marketing costs, and as I have
mentioned before R&D costs. You seem to be under the impression that moving
from near 15+ picoliter drop size to 1 and 2 picoliter drops in just a few
short years came at no expense. This is blatantly ignoring reality. There
are costs involved and they must be recovered (R&D + Production +
Distribution + Marketing + Profit Margin = Price).

It is absolutely absurd that Canon charges the same for two sets of
cartridges as it does for an iP4000 printer. If Ford charged the same for
two tanks of their brand of gasoline as you paid for the car we would all
be outraged and buy gas from a third party supplier and gladly pay
$2.00/gallon.


As pointed out (NOT by me) by a PRO after-market ink poster, this is not
even a close comparison.
The costs to retrive and refine petroleum vs. the materials and labor to
produce an automobile are quite different than
$40 worth of ink vs a $129 printer.

Now for my original point, when people like measekite buy OEM ink it
intices Canon to sell the printers that use the ink at a reduced cost in
order to maximize their mega-profits on ink sells.

They do not need enticing. Any manufacture with 1/2 a brain cell is going to
maximize efforts on the more profitable item.
Contrary to your 'Fuzzy Math' how-ever the profit margins are no where near
what you would like others to believe.


If the vast majority of us used third party ink they would need to raise
the price of their
printers to keep profits up. I can't explain this any simpler than this.

Market analysis shows that approximately 35-40% of consumers already
purchase after-market inks.
This number has continued to grow over the past 5 years resulting in nearly
$8 Billion in aftermarket ink and toner sales business.
During this same time period, printer AND printhead technologies have
continued to advance and printer prices have continued to fall.
I can't explain it any simpler either, you simply don't seem to want to
accept it.

Almost everyone, except apparently you and measekite, knows Canon, Lexmark,
Epson etc. have been practicing this business model for years and years.
So as I said, all you OEM ink buyers please don't stop. I've grown
accustomed to purchasing inexpensive inkjet printers.

I won't as I shop quality and am happy with the product I buy. I have never
had to replace a printhead (or printer) due to head failure in nearly 15
years with the exception of ONE time. About 12 years ago (when printer were
very pricey the way) an aftermarket tank in my HP leaked causing the printer
to fail. Saved about $18 dollars on that cartridge, lost about $400 on the
printer.

With all that said, I will admit that like printer companies, there are both
good and bad after-market ink manufactures.
I do not knock those that use them, only those that use them and when they
have issue, blame that damn crook of a printer manufacture.
After market ink companies (the reputable ones any way) serve a purpose in
that they meet the needs a particular customer base and at the same time
bring competition to the OEM which breeds innovation. So keep buying those
cartridges, I need a faster, quieter, higher resolution printer to stick my
OEM tanks in.

"
I'll make this real simple. What costs Canon more to manufacture, a
printer or a set of ink cartridges? Now if you say the printer then we
just need to stop the discussion here because you are blatantly ignoring
reality.

I meant to say the if you think the ink cartridges cost more to
manufacture.

Yes, I caught that

Now for my original point, when people like measekite buy OEM ink it
intices Canon to sell the printers that use the ink at a reduced cost in
order to maximize their mega-profits on ink sells. If the vast majority
of us used third party ink


They don't because they do not want to take a risk of clogging or other
damage to their printers. It is usually the hobbyist and tinkerers that
buy aftermarket inks.


I would partially agree here.
Those that do not purchase after market either have concerns about clogging
or print quality (or simply have too much money to care),
BUT the market for after-market inks is a mix of both hobbyist and
professional users. "Quality" after-market ink has its place, but if you use
after-market and have a clogged printhead or other issue, you should be
ready to lay blame on the inks just as much as the hardware.

The main (current) issue IMHO is who is selling the "quality" after-market
ink. Even asking the question here in the forum will get you 10 different
answers. With all the different vendors switching suppliers every other
weekend you don't know from one order to the next what is in that tank you
just purchased. (Ace ISO Certified quality inks or "Joe's whipped it up in
my kitchen blender works in all printers crap!). Until I see more stability
in that area, I will stay with (and recommend) OEM carts.

PC Medic wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
news

I'll make this real simple. What costs Canon more to manufacture, a
printer or a set of ink cartridges? Now if you say the printer then we
just need to stop the discussion here because you are blatantly ignoring
reality.


Unfortunately, the 'reality is that it is NOT that simple.
There is much more that goes into the price of an ink tank than the
manufacturing cost of that tank.
There are also costs associated with distribution (to include packaging,
warehousing, shipping, etc), there is marketing costs, and as I have
mentioned before R&D costs. You seem to be under the impression that moving
from near 15+ picoliter drop size to 1 and 2 picoliter drops in just a few
short years came at no expense. This is blatantly ignoring reality. There
are costs involved and they must be recovered (R&D + Production +
Distribution + Marketing + Profit Margin = Price).


Which naturally explains why the price of printers continues to go down
in leaps and bounds - they're making a killing with their ink cartridges
whose cost to us remains constant - as much as $125 for a set of 5 in
Canada. I'm sure someone's done research at Canon that showed they could
give the printers away and still make a profit with just their inks.
Probably a dumping law prohibits them from such a scheme.


It is absolutely absurd that Canon charges the same for two sets of
cartridges as it does for an iP4000 printer.

Yes, it is totally and inexcusably absurd. My sister's a teacher at a
Grade school. When she recently asked kids to print a couple of pictures
of animals at home she had nearly half the kids report they had no ink
in their printers. This is what commonly happens. Parents buy a printer
(or get one free with a computer), use up the ink, and then suffer
"sticker shock" after viewing the price of new cartridges. Alas, the
family printer sits idle, becoming an OEM paperweight or doorstop.

-Taliesyn

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...

While I do not see eye to eye with you, you appear to be more reasonable
and there may be areas of compromise and some areas even of agreement.

One of the things I really do not like are poster who try to be helpful
but are in this business in one form or another and they do have
conflicting interests even when they try to be objective. I got WeStink
so ****ed off that he finally admitted the only reason he gives any
advice is to further his business interests.

I too have a problem with someone posting here to gain financially. That
being said I have also seen where it can be helpful to have a
knowledgeable, honest person provide an unobtrusive service to the group
and do it in a tasteful manner.

As for the current flame war, life is too short to let someone on the
internet get under your skin. I find enough people doing that in my
business life and don't need to find more of it in cyberspace. Personally,
I don't care if you buy OEM ink or brew up a batch in your kitchen. The
choice to use third party, or not, ultimately rests with the individual.
There is more than enough information in this newsgroup for a novice to
make an informed decision as to what will work best for them.


BINGO !


I also don't understand all the hostility between you and the others you
mentioned. Sometimes I find it entertaining and other times it's a PIA to
wade through it all. I would venture to say the majority of the posts in
this group are the result of the little internet war you and a few others
are waging. Think of all the extra time your would have in the course of
a week if you just resisted the urge to continue the flame war.


BINGO !!

Also, I like to think of the posts left in the various newsgroups we
frequent as a resource for future generations to look into the past if the
archives are maintained. I intentionally use my real name so that in the
future anyone in my family that might care to catch a glimpse of my
personality, once I'm gone, can search the newsgroup archives and read my
rantings. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with much of
the childish, petty and down right stupid remarks I have seen in this
group lately. That's just my view. Others, obviously, don't care about,
or consider, such things.

BRAVO !!!

PC Medic wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
news
Snip



Also, let's not forget that it's the people buying OEM ink that keeps
the price of inkjet printers low. For that, I am greatful to them.
Under the current senario I get inexpensive printers AND inexpensive
ink. This is why I don't mind that measekite buys, and promotes the
use of, OEM ink. It's good for my bank account.


I would love to here the logic you base that statement on.


Consider it your homework assignment to figure it out.




The best line of the night! PCMedic seems to be having math addition
problems. I too thank Measekite for helping keep the cost of printers
low by his ever continuing purchases of the OEM cash cow inks. Canon
thanks him too. It's a fine line between a sucker and a loyal OEM buyer
of inks, isn't it.


A very fine line. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the game
plan of the inkjet printer manufacturers. The first clue is that for
many printer models the user can buy a NEW printer for less than he could
buy a set of replacement cartridges. I had better stop now. I don't
want to make that homework assignment too easy.


And any one with business knowledge is quite aware that what may seem to
be the most obvious is sometimes far from the facts.
Hardware is reaching its limitation where printers are concerned. Ink
formulation improvements need to catch up to match possible hardware
improvements which means R&D costs shift.


I'll make this real simple. What costs Canon more to manufacture, a
printer or a set of ink cartridges? Now if you say the printer then we
just need to stop the discussion here because you are blatantly ignoring
reality.



Unfortunately, the 'reality is that it is NOT that simple.
There is much more that goes into the price of an ink tank than the
manufacturing cost of that tank.
There are also costs associated with distribution (to include packaging,
warehousing, shipping, etc), there is marketing costs, and as I have
mentioned before R&D costs. You seem to be under the impression that moving
from near 15+ picoliter drop size to 1 and 2 picoliter drops in just a few
short years came at no expense. This is blatantly ignoring reality. There
are costs involved and they must be recovered (R&D + Production +
Distribution + Marketing + Profit Margin = Price).



It is absolutely absurd that Canon charges the same for two sets of
cartridges as it does for an iP4000 printer. If Ford charged the same for
two tanks of their brand of gasoline as you paid for the car we would all
be outraged and buy gas from a third party supplier and gladly pay
$2.00/gallon.




As pointed out (NOT by me) by a PRO after-market ink poster, this is not
even a close comparison.
The costs to retrive and refine petroleum vs. the materials and labor to
produce an automobile are quite different than
$40 worth of ink vs a $129 printer.



Now for my original point, when people like measekite buy OEM ink it
intices Canon to sell the printers that use the ink at a reduced cost in
order to maximize their mega-profits on ink sells.



They do not need enticing. Any manufacture with 1/2 a brain cell is going to
maximize efforts on the more profitable item.
Contrary to your 'Fuzzy Math' how-ever the profit margins are no where near
what you would like others to believe.


If the vast majority of us used third party ink they would need to raise
the price of their


printers to keep profits up. I can't explain this any simpler than this.



Market analysis shows that approximately 35-40% of consumers already
purchase after-market inks.



So do you think it is reasonable to assume that around 10 to 20% of
consumers have clogged printheads and/or other problems due to
aftermarket inks?

This number has continued to grow over the past 5 years resulting in nearly
$8 Billion in aftermarket ink and toner sales business.
During this same time period, printer AND printhead technologies have
continued to advance and printer prices have continued to fall.
I can't explain it any simpler either, you simply don't seem to want to
accept it.



Almost everyone, except apparently you and measekite, knows Canon, Lexmark,
Epson etc. have been practicing this business model for years and years.
So as I said, all you OEM ink buyers please don't stop. I've grown
accustomed to purchasing inexpensive inkjet printers.



I won't as I shop quality and am happy with the product I buy. I have never
had to replace a printhead (or printer) due to head failure in nearly 15
years with the exception of ONE time. About 12 years ago (when printer were
very pricey the way) *an aftermarket tank in my HP leaked* causing the printer
to fail. *Saved about $18 dollars on that cartridge, lost about $400* on the
printer.

With all that said, I will admit that like printer companies, there are both
good and bad after-market ink manufactures.
I do not knock those that use them, only those that use them and when they
have issue, blame that damn crook of a printer manufacture.
After market ink companies (the reputable ones any way) serve a purpose in
that they meet the needs a particular customer base and at the same time
bring competition to the OEM which breeds innovation. So keep buying those
cartridges, I need a faster, quieter, higher resolution printer to stick my
OEM tanks in.



*AMEN!*

PC Medic wrote:

Now for my original point, when people like measekite buy OEM ink it
intices Canon to sell the printers that use the ink at a reduced cost in
order to maximize their mega-profits on ink sells. If the vast majority
of us used third party ink


They don't because they do not want to take a risk of clogging or other
damage to their printers. It is usually the hobbyist and tinkerers that
buy aftermarket inks.




I would partially agree here.
Those that do not purchase after market either have concerns about clogging
or print quality (or simply have too much money to care),
BUT the market for after-market inks is a mix of both hobbyist and
professional users. "Quality" after-market ink has its place, but if you use
after-market and have a clogged printhead or other issue, you should be
ready to lay blame on the inks just as much as the hardware.

The main (current) issue IMHO is who is selling the "quality" after-market
ink.


It is very difficult to sell because each vendor sells some ink under
their label. You may find that the same bad ink is distributed by
multiple vendors under multiple labels and since they will not tell you
it is very difficult to tell. You also have the problem of
consistency. If a vendor gets a much better price break they will
change suppliers and the buyers of that label will not know.

Even asking the question here in the forum will get you 10 different
answers. With all the *different vendors switching suppliers every other
weekend* you don't know from one order to the next what is in that tank you
just purchased. (Ace ISO Certified quality inks or "Joe's whipped it up in
my kitchen blender works in all printers crap!). Until I see more stability
in that area, I will stay with (and recommend) OEM carts.



It would be nice if a couple of decent mfg/formulators would market
prefilled carts under their own BRAND name through all channels like
Costco, Office Depot, Staples and multiple websites. Then you would
have price and service competition and would be able to track problems
with that brand. I think that would attract more customers and may even
cause a reduction in the OEM prices.

PC Medic wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...



While I do not see eye to eye with you, you appear to be more reasonable
and there may be areas of compromise and some areas even of agreement.

One of the things I really do not like are poster who try to be helpful
but are in this business in one form or another and they do have
conflicting interests even when they try to be objective. I got WeStink
so ****ed off that he finally admitted the only reason he gives any
advice is to further his business interests.


I too have a problem with someone posting here to gain financially. That
being said I have also seen where it can be helpful to have a
knowledgeable, honest person provide an unobtrusive service to the group
and do it in a tasteful manner.

As for the current flame war, life is too short to let someone on the
internet get under your skin. I find enough people doing that in my
business life and don't need to find more of it in cyberspace. Personally,
I don't care if you buy OEM ink or brew up a batch in your kitchen. The
choice to use third party, or not, ultimately rests with the individual.
There is more than enough information in this newsgroup for a novice to
make an informed decision as to what will work best for them.




BINGO !




I also don't understand all the hostility between you and the others you
mentioned. Sometimes I find it entertaining and other times it's a PIA to
wade through it all. I would venture to say the majority of the posts in
this group are the result of the little internet war you and a few others
are waging. Think of all the extra time your would have in the course of
a week if you just resisted the urge to continue the flame war.




BINGO !!



I got BINGO too.



Also, I like to think of the posts left in the various newsgroups we
frequent as a resource for future generations to look into the past if the
archives are maintained. I intentionally use my real name so that in the
future anyone in my family that might care to catch a glimpse of my
personality, once I'm gone, can search the newsgroup archives and read my
rantings. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with much of
the childish, petty and down right stupid remarks I have seen in this
group lately. That's just my view. Others, obviously, don't care about,
or consider, such things.



BRAVO !!!

Taliesyn wrote:

PC Medic wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
news

I'll make this real simple. What costs Canon more to manufacture, a
printer or a set of ink cartridges? Now if you say the printer then
we just need to stop the discussion here because you are blatantly
ignoring reality.



Unfortunately, the 'reality is that it is NOT that simple.
There is much more that goes into the price of an ink tank than the
manufacturing cost of that tank.
There are also costs associated with distribution (to include
packaging, warehousing, shipping, etc), there is marketing costs, and
as I have mentioned before R&D costs. You seem to be under the
impression that moving from near 15+ picoliter drop size to 1 and 2
picoliter drops in just a few short years came at no expense. This is
blatantly ignoring reality. There are costs involved and they must be
recovered (R&D + Production + Distribution + Marketing + Profit
Margin = Price).


Which naturally explains why the price of printers continues to go down
in leaps and bounds - they're making a killing with their ink cartridges
whose cost to us remains constant - as much as $125 for a set of 5 in
Canada.


You can choose to move if you do not like it.

I'm sure someone's done research at Canon that showed they could
give the printers away and still make a profit with just their inks.


I going to call them up and tell them I buy OEM ink and ask them if they
will send me a Canon i9900 for free.

Probably a dumping law prohibits them from such a scheme.


I won't tell.



It is absolutely absurd that Canon charges the same for two sets of
cartridges as it does for an iP4000 printer.


Yes, it is totally and inexcusably absurd. My sister's a teacher at a
Grade school.


Are you a student there?

When she recently asked kids to print a couple of pictures
of animals at home she had nearly half the kids report they had no ink
in their printers.


They probably clogged their printheads with AfterMarket inks. I hope
you referred them to Burtie Furtie so they could look on nifty and maybe
get a manual from Art or they could write to Frankie Crankie and set the
latest for his head comes to a point and he thinks he is sharp.

This is what commonly happens. Parents buy a printer
(or get one free with a computer), use up the ink, and then suffer
"sticker shock" after viewing the price of new cartridges.


Is that what happened in your house?

Alas, the
family printer sits idle, becoming an OEM paperweight or doorstop.

-Taliesyn