«

Paul J Gans wrote:
> Bob Williams <> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <philcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>>
>>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>>> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>>>
>>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>>> printing.
>>>
>> I agree with you, Paul.
>> I buy generic ink cartridges for my Canon Pixma iP3000 for about 35% the
>> cost of new cartridges. I print lots of 8x10s and don't give cost a
>> second thought. Despite a lot of pooh-poohing of generic inks in
>> magazines, by direct A-B comparisons, I have found very little if any
>> difference between Generic and OEM inks. The problem is that generics
>> are not available for most printers, especially those using pigment
>> based inks. For my Super Shots, I have them printed at Costco ........
>> mainly for increased longevity.
>> Bob Williams
>
> I think this is a wise strategy, if you are getting satisfactory
> results from the off-brand ink. Most printers are so cheap that
> if they jam fron off-brand ink, one can simply throw them away
> and buy a new one -- *with* cartridges, almost as cheaply as
> the cost of branded cartriges alone.
>
> What tends to happen though is that a company's focus shifts.
> What business is Apple in? Selling computer hardware? Software,
> Iphones, Ipods, music?
>
> It seems clear that what used to be printer companies (or printer
> divisions of larger companies) are now INK manufacturers who sell
> printers as a sideline to increase consumption of their inks. I
> wonder about the long-term viability of this strategy. It has
> certainly alienated *me*, for one.
>
Well, some companies have been using that philosophy for many years,
with continued success.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:37:33 +0000, philc wrote:

> On Sep 13, 3:45 pm, John Passaneau <w3...@arrl.net> wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote innews: om:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >> Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>> ray wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>
>> snip>>>>>> TIA
>> >>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is
>> >>>>> around $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen
>> >>>>> cartridges run out after doing 15 sheets.
>> >>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers
>> >>>>> out there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home
>> >>>>> printing runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside
>> >>>>> source.
>> >>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job
>> >>>> with a $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a
>> >>>> machine which cost several thousand dollars.
>>
>> >>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>
>> >> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>> >> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>> >> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>> >> they take them to Wal-Mart or wherever.
>>
>> >> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>> >> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>> >> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>> >> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>> >> printing.
>>
>> > I am sure that is exactly what Kodak is hoping will happen. Remains
>> > to be seen if they are right. I have looked at their printers, and
>> > while they are a bit more expensive, they seem well built, if a bit
>> > larger than I like. Not really in the market for a new printer, but
>> > if I were, they would go on the short list.
>> > But cost savings is NOT one of the reasons for printing one's own
>> > pictures. There are several:
>> > 1. Immediate results.
>> > 2. Flexible, per picture adjustments
>> > 3. Privacy.
>> > 4. Control of quality, paper choice, etc.
>>
>> > I am sure there are many more, but cost savings aren't among them.
>>
>> Hi all:
>> I too have looked at the Kodak printers and my problem with then is that
>> they only do 4x6 inch prints or they are "all in ones". I don't need or
>> want an all in one printer. I want a printer that will do an 8.5x11 inch
>> or slightly bigger and do that very well. I seldom use an outside
>> printer, as I'm fussy about how my prints look. There is a local photo
>> shop that does large format inkjets in house and I use them for 11x14 and
>> bigger prints. But even then they do a small scale proof for me before I
>> commit to the big finish print. I've been printing color photograph in my
>> own darkroom since 1970 and I know what I want. Right now I'm using a
>> dirt cheap Epson R200 with a custom profile and Qimage printing software
>> and I'm getting some of the best looking prints I've ever made, inkjet or
>> wet darkroom. I do not think that Wal-Mart could give me the quality of
>> print that I want. I do wish Kodak well and hope that the other printer
>> makers take up the idea of fairly pricing ink but I'm not holding my
>> breath.
>>
>> John Passaneau
>
> called into comets on the way home - they had the epson 240 for £70 a
> further 10% when ordering on-line. nearly £150 on amazon. the also
> had the paper for £23 for 150 sheets. quite surprised and placed my
> order.

Cool. I've purchased several printers and scanners from the Epson online
store.

Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Bob Williams <> wrote:
>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <philcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>>>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>>>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>>>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>>>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>>>> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>>>>
>>>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>>>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>>>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>>>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>>>> printing.
>>>>
>>> I agree with you, Paul.
>>> I buy generic ink cartridges for my Canon Pixma iP3000 for about 35% the
>>> cost of new cartridges. I print lots of 8x10s and don't give cost a
>>> second thought. Despite a lot of pooh-poohing of generic inks in
>>> magazines, by direct A-B comparisons, I have found very little if any
>>> difference between Generic and OEM inks. The problem is that generics
>>> are not available for most printers, especially those using pigment
>>> based inks. For my Super Shots, I have them printed at Costco ........
>>> mainly for increased longevity.
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>> I think this is a wise strategy, if you are getting satisfactory
>> results from the off-brand ink. Most printers are so cheap that
>> if they jam fron off-brand ink, one can simply throw them away
>> and buy a new one -- *with* cartridges, almost as cheaply as
>> the cost of branded cartriges alone.
>>
>> What tends to happen though is that a company's focus shifts.
>> What business is Apple in? Selling computer hardware? Software,
>> Iphones, Ipods, music?
>>
>> It seems clear that what used to be printer companies (or printer
>> divisions of larger companies) are now INK manufacturers who sell
>> printers as a sideline to increase consumption of their inks. I
>> wonder about the long-term viability of this strategy. It has
>> certainly alienated *me*, for one.
>>
>Well, some companies have been using that philosophy for many years,
>with continued success.

Very true. However, as I said in my first post on this topic,
the companies might make *more* money if they cut the ink price.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:
> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Bob Williams <> wrote:
>>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:46:16 -0700, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 9:26 am, philc <philcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am looking to buy my first printer, and want to research consumable
>>>>>>>>> costs, as they seem to vary widely. what are the cheapest consumables
>>>>>>>>> suppliers in the UK?
>>>>>>>>> Also are there any comparison tables showing cost per print for a wide
>>>>>>>>> range of printers (ink jet and die-sub)?
>>>>>>>>> I dont intend on spending more than £100, not sure if i want ink-jet
>>>>>>>>> or die-sub. i understand i'll be more limited on size with die-sub,
>>>>>>>>> but as i may not be using it frequently i may - from what i've read -
>>>>>>>>> waste ink on an ink-jet by using them infrequently. I am also
>>>>>>>>> surprised that the costs from what ive seen so far are approx 3-4x the
>>>>>>>>> cost of photobox for 6x4's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>> Average cost of print from a mid-priced inkjet (for the ink) is around
>>>>>>>> $ 2.50- $ 3.00 per image for an 8 x 10. I've seen cartidges run out
>>>>>>>> after doing 15 sheets.
>>>>>>>> The paper cost is about $1.00 sheet. So, when there are printers out
>>>>>>>> there who charge $2.00 each for printing an 8 x 10. So home printing
>>>>>>>> runs almost double that of getting it done by an outside source.
>>>>>>> There is also no reason to believe that you can do a better job with a
>>>>>>> $300 inkjet printer that the printing services can do with a machine which
>>>>>>> cost several thousand dollars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but I can do it faster, and with less travel time.
>>>>> It seems to me that printer manufacturers have gotten onto
>>>>> the wrong side of the price/demand curve. I know many folks
>>>>> who have totally given up on printing their own photos. Instead
>>>>> they take them to Walmart or wherever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason? Printing at home is too expensive. It may be too
>>>>> late to recapture that market, but I'd think that halving the
>>>>> cost of the ink would *more* than double the number of cartridges
>>>>> sold due both to more printing per person and more people
>>>>> printing.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with you, Paul.
>>>> I buy generic ink cartridges for my Canon Pixma iP3000 for about 35% the
>>>> cost of new cartridges. I print lots of 8x10s and don't give cost a
>>>> second thought. Despite a lot of pooh-poohing of generic inks in
>>>> magazines, by direct A-B comparisons, I have found very little if any
>>>> difference between Generic and OEM inks. The problem is that generics
>>>> are not available for most printers, especially those using pigment
>>>> based inks. For my Super Shots, I have them printed at Costco ........
>>>> mainly for increased longevity.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I think this is a wise strategy, if you are getting satisfactory
>>> results from the off-brand ink. Most printers are so cheap that
>>> if they jam fron off-brand ink, one can simply throw them away
>>> and buy a new one -- *with* cartridges, almost as cheaply as
>>> the cost of branded cartriges alone.
>>>
>>> What tends to happen though is that a company's focus shifts.
>>> What business is Apple in? Selling computer hardware? Software,
>>> Iphones, Ipods, music?
>>>
>>> It seems clear that what used to be printer companies (or printer
>>> divisions of larger companies) are now INK manufacturers who sell
>>> printers as a sideline to increase consumption of their inks. I
>>> wonder about the long-term viability of this strategy. It has
>>> certainly alienated *me*, for one.
>>>
>> Well, some companies have been using that philosophy for many years,
>> with continued success.
>
> Very true. However, as I said in my first post on this topic,
> the companies might make *more* money if they cut the ink price.
>

How? Unless the price of ink is seriously depressing sales (I doubt
it), reducing the price would only reduce the margin, resulting in lower
profit.