New printers that come with refillable ink tanks?

[mouser]

We've talked before about the racket with inkjet printer ink -- practically giving away printers and then charging you an arm and a leg for miserly ink cartridges.

A recent article discusses Epson's new plans to offer consumers an alternative -- a more expensive printer built to be refilled with cheap ink.

Epson, the maker of my nightmare printer, has finally put an end to the horror of ink cartridges, at least for people willing to throw cash at the problem up front. The five new EcoTank series printers look like normal models, only they have containers on their sides that hold gobs and gobs of ink. How much? Years’ worth. Enough that your children—or at least mine—could go on a two-hour coloring-page-printing bender and you wouldn’t even notice.

http://www.wsj.com/a...1?mod=trending_now_1

[eleman]

Uhh... didn't we already have such printers called 'enterprise' (or equivalent word) solutions? I distinctly remember buying a $12K laser printer for the department I worked at. Its toner cartridges were cheaper than those of a $100 model, and lasted 8 times longer.

[tomos]

This is good news!
Sounds a little expensive @ $400 - the author doesnt say what the comparable model (XP-420) costs - but it's on offer on Amazon.com for 60$ (reduced from 100$).

Interesting what is said say about Epson's printheads:

Epson’s advantage is its permanent mechanical print heads, as opposed to the disposable thermal ones used by its chief competitors. Because Epson’s print heads are always connected to the printer, ink can be piped to them from anywhere—a cartridge or a tank on the side of the printer. More important, because they’re mechanical and not thermal, they can operate for years without requiring replacement and are less likely to clog.

Have also heard some scare-stories about Epson's printheads - but have to admit I've given up on two Canon printers because of what was probably a broken printhead (you're left with the option: buy an expensive new printhead and it *might* work...)


Another thing that they make light of, but I'd want to know more about, is the dye vs. pigment inks thing:

the print output looked almost exactly like what came out of the nearest comparative model, Epson’s XP-420. There’s a slight difference in the ink—the XP-420 uses a pigment-based ink, which means it is waterproof when it dries, while most of the EcoTank printers use dye ink, which makes for nice photos, but may run if wet.

[tomos]

Uhh... didn't we already have such printers called 'enterprise' (or equivalent word) solutions? I distinctly remember buying a $12K laser printer for the department I worked at. Its toner cartridges were cheaper than those of a $100 model, and lasted 8 times longer.

-eleman (August 05, 2015, 02:29 AM)

yeah, but laser and inkjet are very different beasts...

[eleman]

Uhh... didn't we already have such printers called 'enterprise' (or equivalent word) solutions? I distinctly remember buying a $12K laser printer for the department I worked at. Its toner cartridges were cheaper than those of a $100 model, and lasted 8 times longer.

-eleman (August 05, 2015, 02:29 AM)

yeah, but laser and inkjet are very different beasts...

-tomos (August 05, 2015, 04:14 AM)

But the same story applies. There are dirt cheap lasers with expensive tiny toners, and there are expensive lasers with affordable toners.

Even in case of inkjets, HP's officejet pro models had much cheaper ink prices compared to deskjet models. I'm sure other brands also offer such distinctions.

I feel this article is rather a piece of advertorial paid by Epson.

[tomos]

But the same story applies. There are dirt cheap lasers with expensive tiny toners, and there are expensive lasers with affordable toners.

-eleman (August 05, 2015, 04:17 AM)

hence my 'Yeah' in my response -
my point was just that this is a first for inkjet.

Even in case of inkjets, HP's officejet pro models had much cheaper ink prices compared to deskjet models. I'm sure other brands also offer such distinctions.

-eleman (August 05, 2015, 04:17 AM)

that was a step in the right direction.
(Ironically, I know a couple of people with HP printers, and they still use much cheaper replacement inks - but I suspect they are doing better with this model than the other manufacturers).

I feel this article is rather a piece of advertorial paid by Epson.

-eleman (August 05, 2015, 04:17 AM)

Agreed -
but I'm still happy to see the advance. These days, so many people use replacement inks, that the manufacturer's business model (of cheap hardware and expensive inks) is probably starting to fail.