Clogged Black on i560

"measekite" wrote in message
...


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?


Honestly, No.
While I am reasonably sure some of the 'cheaper' after-market inks may be
the cause of some head failures, I would suspect it is no where near this
percentage. I do not think the after-market ink industry would still be
around with numbers like that.

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:

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?



Honestly, No.
While I am reasonably sure some of the 'cheaper' after-market inks may be
the cause of some head failures, I would suspect it is no where near this
percentage. I do not think the after-market ink industry would still be
around with numbers like that.



I don't know with what authority, numbers wise, you or the other poster
(10-20%) are using to validate your positions. I do agree that a 10-20%
failure rate is totally unreasonable and is in fact, downright patently
absurd.
That is because marketing and business acumen tells us that after market
ink suppliers would quickly go out of business if their products were
the main culprit in the destruction or disabling of their clients
printers. That’s simple market dictum 101 and you don't have to be a
mental giant to figure that one out. It's rather obvious that
destruction of your client base will quickly put you out of business.
From a personal stand point I can attest to the fact that I've used
after market ink carts and refills in my HP's, Epsons and Canon printers
for almost a decade and never had any problems at all. I started using
3rd's when the 3rd market was relatively new and not near as sorted out
as it is today.
The reality is, some very astute business people have grown a relatively
small after market ink business into a huge financial industry.
Today, nearly anyone purchasing 3rd party inks may now do so with near
100% confidence in that what they’re buying will work to their
satisfaction.

Frank

PC Medic wrote:
"

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

I figured you did but better safe than sorry.

Frank wrote:

PC Medic wrote:

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?



Honestly, No.
While I am reasonably sure some of the 'cheaper' after-market inks
may be the cause of some head failures, I would suspect it is no
where near this percentage. I do not think the after-market ink
industry would still be around with numbers like that.



I don't know with what authority, numbers wise, you or the other
poster (10-20%) are using to validate your positions. I do agree that
a 10-20% failure rate is totally unreasonable and is in fact,
downright patently absurd.
That is because marketing and business acumen tells us that after
market ink suppliers would quickly go out of business if their
products were the main culprit in the destruction or disabling of
their clients printers. That’s simple market dictum 101 and you don't
have to be a mental giant to figure that one out. It's rather obvious
that destruction of your client base will quickly put you out of
business.
From a personal stand point I can attest to the fact that I've used
after market ink carts and refills in my HP's, Epsons and Canon
printers for almost a decade and never had any problems at all. I
started using 3rd's when the 3rd market was relatively new and not
near as sorted out as it is today.
The reality is, some very astute business people have grown a
relatively small after market ink business into a huge financial
industry.
Today, nearly anyone purchasing 3rd party inks may now do so with near
100% confidence in that what they’re buying will work to their
satisfaction.

Frank


Plain Rhetoric and Bull****

measekite wrote:


Frank wrote:

PC Medic wrote:

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?



Honestly, No.
While I am reasonably sure some of the 'cheaper' after-market inks
may be the cause of some head failures, I would suspect it is no
where near this percentage. I do not think the after-market ink
industry would still be around with numbers like that.



I don't know with what authority, numbers wise, you or the other
poster (10-20%) are using to validate your positions. I do agree that
a 10-20% failure rate is totally unreasonable and is in fact,
downright patently absurd.
That is because marketing and business acumen tells us that after
market ink suppliers would quickly go out of business if their
products were the main culprit in the destruction or disabling of
their clients printers. That’s simple market dictum 101 and you don't
have to be a mental giant to figure that one out. It's rather obvious
that destruction of your client base will quickly put you out of
business.
From a personal stand point I can attest to the fact that I've used
after market ink carts and refills in my HP's, Epsons and Canon
printers for almost a decade and never had any problems at all. I
started using 3rd's when the 3rd market was relatively new and not
near as sorted out as it is today.
The reality is, some very astute business people have grown a
relatively small after market ink business into a huge financial
industry.
Today, nearly anyone purchasing 3rd party inks may now do so with near
100% confidence in that what they’re buying will work to their
satisfaction.

Frank



Plain Rhetoric and Bull****

Your total lack of business experience and your inability to accept that
you may be wrong clouds an already questionable intellect.
Simply put, you have no basis for argument, no facts and no personal
experience.
It is you who constantly post nothing but poorly written, grade
schoolish rhetoric (usually diabribetic in style) and unadulterated
bull****.
I, along with everyone else in this ng have yet to see you post anything
resembling intellectual though based on material fact or even believable
assumptions.
It is also obvious to everyone that you have some very deep personal
demons that you need to work out in order to become a socially
acceptable humane being, which today you are not.
Good luck and get started soon.
You've a lot to work on.
Frank

measekite wrote:


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.


Ink cartridge costs are proportional to the cost of the printer whether
you live in the States or Canada. $125 CAD for ink may be more than 1/2
the cost of the printer in Canada. Whatever you pay in the States is
also 1/2 the cost of a new printer. There's no "running away"; you
either hand it over to Canon, if you want to keep printing, or keep most
of it for yourself by looking for alternate sources of ink. You chose to
give it all to Canon. I know you made Canon is very happy, which must
please you. I chose to keep 90% of it for myself and give just 10% to my
ink suppliers. Both, my suppliers and I are very pleased. Seems every-
one's happy: you, me, Canon, my "ink guys". So what's the problem? ;-)

-Taliesyn

Frank wrote:

measekite wrote:



Frank wrote:

PC Medic wrote:

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?



Honestly, No.
While I am reasonably sure some of the 'cheaper' after-market inks
may be the cause of some head failures, I would suspect it is no
where near this percentage. I do not think the after-market ink
industry would still be around with numbers like that.



I don't know with what authority, numbers wise, you or the other
poster (10-20%) are using to validate your positions. I do agree
that a 10-20% failure rate is totally unreasonable and is in fact,
downright patently absurd.
That is because marketing and business acumen tells us that after
market ink suppliers would quickly go out of business if their
products were the main culprit in the destruction or disabling of
their clients printers. That’s simple market dictum 101 and you
don't have to be a mental giant to figure that one out. It's rather
obvious that destruction of your client base will quickly put you
out of business.
From a personal stand point I can attest to the fact that I've used
after market ink carts and refills in my HP's, Epsons and Canon
printers for almost a decade and never had any problems at all. I
started using 3rd's when the 3rd market was relatively new and not
near as sorted out as it is today.
The reality is, some very astute business people have grown a
relatively small after market ink business into a huge financial
industry.
Today, nearly anyone purchasing 3rd party inks may now do so with
near 100% confidence in that what they’re buying will work to their
satisfaction.

Frank




Plain Rhetoric and Bull****


Your total lack of business experience and your inability to accept
that you may be wrong clouds an already questionable intellect.
Simply put, you have no basis for argument, no facts and no personal
experience.
It is you who constantly post nothing but poorly written, grade
schoolish rhetoric (usually diabribetic in style) and unadulterated
bull****.
I, along with everyone else in the AfterMarket Club have yet to see
you post anything resembling intellectual though based on material
fact or even believable assumptions.
It is also obvious to everyone that you have some very deep personal
demons that you need to work out in order to become a socially
acceptable humane being, which today you are not.
Good luck and get started soon.
You've a lot to work on.
Frank


How come that you are so UGLY
That you gotta sneak up on a glass of water
To get a drink??????? :-D

measekite wrote:


How come that you are so UGLY
That you gotta sneak up on a glass of water
To get a drink??????? :-D

I'll say it again and without malice.
You have real problems that need to be addressed in order for you to
acculturate into a socially acceptable individual.
I wish you only the best life has to offer.
Again, good luck.
Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
news:ULNpe.2211$xr.2175@fed1read05...
measekite wrote:


How come that you are so UGLY
That you gotta sneak up on a glass of water
To get a drink??????? :-D

I'll say it again and without malice.
You have real problems that need to be addressed in order for you to
acculturate into a socially acceptable individual.
I wish you only the best life has to offer.
Again, good luck.
Frank

Frank - for a minute I thought you had wished him the best AFTERLIFE.

Burt wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
news:ULNpe.2211$xr.2175@fed1read05...

measekite wrote:


How come that you are so UGLY
That you gotta sneak up on a glass of water
To get a drink??????? :-D

I'll say it again and without malice.
You have real problems that need to be addressed in order for you to
acculturate into a socially acceptable individual.
I wish you only the best life has to offer.
Again, good luck.
Frank


Frank - for a minute I thought you had wished him the best AFTERLIFE.


:-)
Frank