Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Region-Coded Ink Cartridges??

Reply
Thread Tools

Region-Coded Ink Cartridges??

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
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>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
On 11/05/2010 8:35 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro 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>

Epson do the same.
They seem to have a strange attitude - charge like wounded bulls in the
export market, yet charge only 50% of that price to their domestic market.
If our meat exporters used the same principle, I'd have just had lamb
loin for dinner instead of the saveloy soup.
Epson use an extra bit of obfuscation - they name identical printers
differently for export and their domestic market.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Keatinge <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>An HP printer bought in one region wont 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>> An HP printer bought in one region wont 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.

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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
On May 12, 5:49*pm, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


L/T I think their profits will be eroded anyway, as the volume of
printing declines - From a personal perspective, I've printed 3 pages
in the last two weeks.

Of course having said that, we have one senior Manager at my firm who
prints absolutely every email and files it in countless arch-leaver
files. Of course, that's on top of the 15Gb (and growing) mailbox they
already have.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
In article <hsdfhg$u7s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan

> Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An HP printer bought in one region wont 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.

>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 ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On 13/05/2010 11:57 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article<hsdfhg$u7s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan

>> Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An HP printer bought in one region wont 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.
>

Yes - but the lost profit from lost sales to third parties will be less
than the margin lost if they reduce prices - even if unit sales
increase. As I said, it's a multi billion dollar business. They will
analyse the effect of price on revenue and the bottom line very very
thoroughly.
>
>> 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 ?
>

The makers seem to keep moving to smaller and more expensive cartridges,
and have been doing so for about the last 15 years.
I doubt they will change unless forced by regulation.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On 13/05/2010 3:13 p.m., Allistar wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/2010 11:57 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<hsdfhg$u7s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan
>>>> Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_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.
>> >

>> Yes - but the lost profit from lost sales to third parties will be less
>> than the margin lost if they reduce prices - even if unit sales
>> increase. As I said, it's a multi billion dollar business. They will
>> analyse the effect of price on revenue and the bottom line very very
>> thoroughly.
>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>>

>> The makers seem to keep moving to smaller and more expensive cartridges,
>> and have been doing so for about the last 15 years.
>> I doubt they will change unless forced by regulation.

>
> Why should they be regulated? Nobody forces you to buy their cartridges. I
> would never buy a printer that had region encoded cartriges or any other
> means of preventing other compatible cartridges from being used.


How about if the printer maker uses copyright law to stop compatible
cartridges from being sold ?
https://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-...l-case-archive
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On 13/05/2010 3:13 p.m., Allistar wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/2010 11:57 a.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<hsdfhg$u7s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan
>>>> Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_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.
>> >

>> Yes - but the lost profit from lost sales to third parties will be less
>> than the margin lost if they reduce prices - even if unit sales
>> increase. As I said, it's a multi billion dollar business. They will
>> analyse the effect of price on revenue and the bottom line very very
>> thoroughly.
>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>>

>> The makers seem to keep moving to smaller and more expensive cartridges,
>> and have been doing so for about the last 15 years.
>> I doubt they will change unless forced by regulation.

>
> Why should they be regulated? Nobody forces you to buy their cartridges. I
> would never buy a printer that had region encoded cartriges or any other
> means of preventing other compatible cartridges from being used.
>

Almost all have "means of preventing other compatible cartridges from
being used", so there aren't going to be many (if any) printers for you
to choose from.
Those means are usually circumvented by third party suppliers. The OEM
manufacturers have at various times threatened to sue (for claimed
violation of IP rights), but backed off when even a hint appeared that
regulation could be the result.

I'm all for market regulation in the real world where patent and
copyright regulation also exists. Global corporates might whine about
wanting a "free" market and letting the market self-regulate, but
*always* omit recognition of the fact that they're protected by
regulation, and use those regulations fiercely to protect themselves and
suppress competition.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <hsdfhg$u7s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2010 3:40 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Alan

>> Keatinge<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:35:13 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An HP printer bought in one region wont 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 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Continuous ink systems and alternative ink questions... Michael Seltzer Digital Photography 1 07-03-2006 12:38 PM
Re: Color ink out. Replace color ink cartridge. Press Enter to continue. Bill Williams Digital Photography 7 12-31-2004 05:15 PM
Re: Color ink out. Replace color ink cartridge. Press Enter to continue. Donna Michaelson Digital Photography 1 12-25-2004 09:40 AM
Permajet paper and ink to replace Epson paper and ink? nobody nowhere Digital Photography 1 08-31-2003 01:16 AM
Ink is ink is ink? Or no? Mike Graham Digital Photography 7 08-13-2003 09:25 PM



Advertisments