«

On 14/05/2010 3:29 a.m., Richard wrote:
> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <hsdfhg$u7s$>, Me <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>> In article< >, Alan
>>> Keatinge<> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>> <_zealand> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An HP printer bought in one region won’t work with HP ink
>>>>>> cartridges bought
>>>>>> in another region??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1635733/hp-subdivides-world>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have a Canon Pixma IP4600 which works very well. I also have a
>>>>> son who
>>>>> lives in the States where Canon cartridges are far cheaper than
>>>>> here. He
>>>>> sent me one to try. Identical size but different number and
>>>>> wouldn't work.
>>>>> Now I use a brand called Tonney sold by an Sydney firm TEG Computers.
>>>>> Including freight they cost approx, $17 each compared to about $29
>>>>> for the
>>>>> same thing here.
>>>> Yep. A classic case of a bad policy resulting in fewer sales of the
>>>> company's fine products. Unbelievable.
>>>>
>>> As margins are very high on inks (IIRC HP declares something like
>>> US$5 billion profit from printer consumables PA) lost sales to third
>>> party makers will be factored in to profit calculations. When many
>>> billions are involved, they're going to try to do a very very good
>>> job on this (from a beancounters POV of course).
>>> So while it's bad policy for you and me, I'm sure it's very good
>>> policy for HP/Epson/Canon.
>>
>> The theory is great ... the practice drives people away from buying
>> the company's branded ink to the generics. How can that be at all good
>> for the company concerned ? Certainly, once the printer is out of
>> warranty, there's nio reason to buy expensive ink.
>
> Print quality and consistancy is the reason to go for the proper inks.
>
> Lost count of the number of wasted sheets because the off brand ink was
> either misfiring some jets or just ended up with a massive colour cast
> over certain shades on it. Forget printing greyscale with cheap inks -
> all it does is purpley blue on the warehouse generic brand I last tried.
>
> Put epsons back in, let it purge out the other stuff and its back to
> looking like it should.
>
> Generics are great for drafts, pie charts, kids assignments - but if it
> needs to look ok, is going on photo paper or is being presented then its
> often bad.
>
> I did get some good generic ink for my crappy pigment based printer that
> I do dvd-r prints on, since the dye stuff bleeds badly on printable
> discs, budget-store on ebay. It looks prettymuch the same. Got some for
> my other cheapie one I do documents on (dye based) the first lot was ok,
> moved onto the second lot and they were no better than cheapies)
>
I've bought printable disks some with a "fast dry" finish which gives a
water resistant finish with pigment inks, and some with a swellable
polymer coating that probably looks good with dye based inks, but smears
easily. TDK printable disks I have seem to be okay.
With pigment inks on the right gloss/semi-gloss paper finish, the prints
are water-proof to the extent that if they get smeared with a little
gunk/sneeze/finger marks when on display, they wipe clean without damage
using a damp microfibre cloth. But it takes a couple of days for them
to dry thoroughly - there's a solvent used (coalescing solvent) to fuse
the acrylic binder and they don't achieve full hardness until it's
evaporated. It also fogs glass if you frame them too soon after printing.

>>> I did hear an argument that some of the great printing technology is
>>> from R&D funded from ink profits. OTOH, the technology really hasn't
>>> moved forward much in the past 5 years - the photo printer I use
>>> (Epson R1800) has been replaced by something not much better (R1900)
>>> using the same technology - but their marketing department (I assume)
>>> reduced ink capacity in each cartridge by 30% or so, and increased
>>> the price per cartridge.
>>
>> And how long do they think customers will put up with this sort of
>> thing ? There are at least a few of us that aren't stupid ... aren't
>> there ?
>
> Sure has advanced, my latest epson photo printer is about 3 times the
> speed and has smaller drop size than the 4 year old one it replaced. The
> dinosaur A3 ones I got (1280 I think) are so damn slow that it can take
> hours to do a small booklet on it in the best modes.
>
The 1280 technology IIRC dates back to models released around the turn
of the century. Yes they are slow. I don't think the new A3 pigment
ink models (1900/2880) are much faster than the 5YO models they
replaced. Speed could perhaps be ranked in $ of ink per minute they
consume.

On 14/05/2010 9:05 a.m., Allistar wrote:

>
> Yes - I argue that such regulation shouldn't exist. With it, there is no
> free market.

Should that include the freedom to deceive the customer ?

On 14/05/2010 10:56 a.m., Allistar wrote:
> victor wrote:
>
>> On 14/05/2010 9:05 a.m., Allistar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes - I argue that such regulation shouldn't exist. With it, there is no
>>> free market.
>>
>> Should that include the freedom to deceive the customer ?
>
> I would expect any sale agreement to state that the product being purchased
> lives up the the promises made. If no such clause exists in the sale
> agreement, then I wouldn't buy the product. No need for regulation - just
> personal responsibility.

So what happens when the deal doesn't meet your expectations ?

Allistar wrote:

> I would question any consumer that intentionally buys printers like that.
> The solution to such companies is that they change their ways because no
> one buys their products. If people willingly buy their products, what's the
> issue?

What would you ask them?

I am quite happy with my low cost printers. When they die, I gut them
for cool parts like motors and gears and stuff, put the rest of the
plastic in the recyclebin since its all numbered and a few circuitboards
that I keep around meaning to take to the next e-waste collection.

In message <hsitnf$2ir$>, Richard wrote:

> I am quite happy with my low cost printers. When they die, I gut them
> for cool parts like motors and gears and stuff ...

What do you use them for?

In message <hsb4s1$1k9$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> An HP printer bought in one region won’t work with HP ink cartridges
> bought in another region??

Looks like HP is offering to help change the region setting on the
customer’s printer
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1648662/hp-unlocks-printer-regionalisation>.

Which begs the question: why the bloody hell do they have this
regionalization in the first place?

On Sat, 15 May 2010 23:56:20 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Looks like HP is offering to help change the region setting on the
> customer’s printer
> <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1648662/hp-unlocks-printer-regionalisation>.
>
> Which begs the question: why the bloody hell do they have this
> regionalization in the first place?

Perhaps to prevent people buying printers cheaper from one region and importing them into the region
where they live?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Lawrence wrote:

> Which begs the question: why the bloody hell do they have this
> regionalization in the first place?

IIUC in New Zealand competition law "regionalization" is
anticompetitive, not least because it makes parallel importing more
difficult. Of course the Americans lobby hard against this stuff, and
other countries bend over readily, so they have it in the first place.

I'm stating an ideal there, but it's an ideal worth pursuing in NZ.

Regards, John

In message
<f965ca00-6d82-4735-b167->, John
Little wrote:

> IIUC in New Zealand competition law "regionalization" is
> anticompetitive ...

In Australia their Commerce Commission equivalent, the ACCC, announced an
investigation of DVD-Video region codes on exactly this basis. This was a
few years ago, I don’t think there’s been an announcement of any outcome
yet.

I don’t think such practices have actually been ruled illegal anywhere in
the world, least of all in NZ.

On 16/05/2010 3:01 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <f965ca00-6d82-4735-b167->, John
> Little wrote:
>
>> IIUC in New Zealand competition law "regionalization" is
>> anticompetitive ...
>
> In Australia their Commerce Commission equivalent, the ACCC, announced an
> investigation of DVD-Video region codes on exactly this basis. This was a
> few years ago, I don’t think there’s been an announcement of any outcome
> yet.
>
> I don’t think such practices have actually been ruled illegal anywhere in
> the world, least of all in NZ.

It doesn't need a ruling, DVD player distributors in nz only distribute
region free players rather than risk consumers complaints to the
commerce commission, or retailers before the disputes tribunal.
I expect HP will have to change their policy because they have no
defense. They could say that using aftermarket cartridges might cause
damage that would invalidate the guarantee, and that would justify the
use of authorization keys, but not region codes.