What I don't know is if there is a reason to spend 24% more for these
cartridges? Is canon just annoyed at the fact there are now chip
resetters on the market?
Yes, the IP3500 and 4500 are going away, as are the corresponding AIO
models. The new tanks don't cost any more retail, but as you noted are
smaller. It remains to be seen if the ink usage is less or the same. The new
models have completely re-designed heads, so odds are good that this
represents better quality prints.
It's certainly no surprise that re-designed print engines will use different
inks, different chips, etc. If you choose to read a conspiracy into that,
it's your choice. But given the realities of the printer and ink market,
it's no surprise and Canon is certainly not alone in this approach. If you
don't buy Canon inks, they can't afford to sell cheap printers.
Kodak is trying to change this business model with a somewhat uphill
battle, probably because they were out of the printer market for a
number of years, and their printers are all in one only.
Just how far will the inkjet companies go? If it keeps up soon the
cartridges will need replacement every 3 pages. As it is too many
people discard the printer when their ink cartridges run out.
We need, as in Europe, legislation that makes toner and inkjet
cartridges required to have refilling options by end user. Yes, the
price of acquisition will be higher for all products there, but the cost
of replacing consumables will drop. That's the "natural order" of
things, and it is environmentally much more logical and necessary. The
cost of product and manufacture, resources (oil and metals) the toxic
material held in the waste ink diapers, the cost of shipping, the room
they take up in the landfill, its all a disaster and needs to store. It
is a completely unsustainable business model as things are currently.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
DanG wrote:
> Yes, the IP3500 and 4500 are going away, as are the corresponding AIO
> models. The new tanks don't cost any more retail, but as you noted are
> smaller. It remains to be seen if the ink usage is less or the same. The new
> models have completely re-designed heads, so odds are good that this
> represents better quality prints.
>
> It's certainly no surprise that re-designed print engines will use different
> inks, different chips, etc. If you choose to read a conspiracy into that,
> it's your choice. But given the realities of the printer and ink market,
> it's no surprise and Canon is certainly not alone in this approach. If you
> don't buy Canon inks, they can't afford to sell cheap printers.
>
>
On Sep 24, 1:03 pm, "DanG" <nos...@q.com> wrote:
> Yes, the IP3500 and 4500 are going away, as are the corresponding AIO
> models. The new tanks don't cost any more retail, but as you noted are
> smaller. It remains to be seen if the ink usage is less or the same. The new
> models have completely re-designed heads, so odds are good that this
> represents better quality prints.
Are they "completely" redesigned? Seriously are they? The only info
I have on the head is it uses 1,2,5pl drops, which would suggest that
they included a larger drop medium drop size.
I'm willing to accept that you may need a lower resolution on some
papers. But I doubt that it requires totally new ink. In fact they
only advertise an improvement on their PR-202 paper. Lightfastness is
still 30 years.
If there was a speed improvement, or a resolution improvement, I could
see new inks being "required".
As for ink use, I just posted Druckerchannel's test using ISO
24711/12.
> It's certainly no surprise that re-designed print engines will use different
> inks, different chips, etc. If you choose to read a conspiracy into that,
> it's your choice. But given the realities of the printer and ink market,
> it's no surprise and Canon is certainly not alone in this approach. If you
> don't buy Canon inks, they can't afford to sell cheap printers.
It is a surprise when there is no reason for the change. Part of
Canon's charm was the fact that they didn't change their cartridges,
only the inks to some degree. Then they released chips, which only
offer one benefit to the end user, the ability to swap partially full
cartridges and have a reasonable estimate of how much ink is left in
them. But still they operate the same way they did in the past, use
them until 20% full when the prism becomes exposed, then run a
countdown.
And who says I want "cheap" printers? Back in the 1980s dotmatrix
printers sold for $300/pop. I don't know the actual manufacturing
cost, but given the choice I'd be happy, pleased as punch to spend a
little more for the printer if it means longer life and lower running
costs.
No, Canon isn't alone in this approach, but for a long time Canon
offered two basic tanks
1) Thimble class
2) Standard class
The thimble class for a time was offset by a large black tank that you
could replace, or stick with thimbles if you needed color.
Now they have expanded to three tanks in the thimble class.
But if there is a benefit to the new inks and printhead that I'm not
aware of I'd be most interested to hear.
On Sep 24, 3:55 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> That is stupid unless the cart can actually read the ink and if it is not
> the mfg just shut the printer down.
>
> In the area of cell phone batteries Samsung reads the battery code and if
> it is not a Samsung battery will shut down the charger. You then have to
> take the aftermarket battery out of the phone and charge it externally and
> then replace it. Nobody is going to do that. One reason is that it
> protects Samsung (in the event of fire or explosion) and it protects the
> phone.
>
> In the case of ink it protects the printer from the possibility of being
> ruined and it ensures the customer is getting the results the printer was
> designed to provide.
But it's our printer, we can put anything we want into it, and use it
as a flower pot if we so desired.
The complaint is they shrank the size of the cartridges. What the
hell? Will the printer explode if they used 26ml pigment black and
13ml dye? Since they have 6 tank, 7 tank, and 8 tank models I HIGHLY
doubt it. It looks like a cash grab to me.
But again, it's our printer. For example one of the best hacks for
the canons is magnetic ink. It allows you to print checks from your
printer, a VERY handy feature.
The printer manufacturers may imply these "features" are there to
"protect" the end user or the product. However, in a democratic trade
system, people get to choose how and what they wish to do, as long as it
doesn't put the individual or others at risk. The company's liability
ends when the warranty runs out, but the protection methods do not.
Further, if indeed the companies could prove the use of 3rd party
consumables could damage the printer, they could void the warranty the
if teh 3rd party consumables were used. However, they haven;t been able
to lessen the warranty, because they have been unable to prove 3rd party
consumables damage the printer.
Further, nothing justifies the continual reduction of size and yield on
inkjet ink cartridges, well nothing legitimate. Or starter cartridges
being offered with a new printer.
One thing to be aware of is not to just compare ink cartridge size, or
weight, or even the volume of ink. Some design issues may make the ink
get used much less rapidly due to head design changes, density of color,
or simply less waste, and potentially vice-versa.
Look at yield at a certain percentage of color coverage per page.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
intergalactic wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:55 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> That is stupid unless the cart can actually read the ink and if it is not
>> the mfg just shut the printer down.
>>
>> In the area of cell phone batteries Samsung reads the battery code and if
>> it is not a Samsung battery will shut down the charger. You then have to
>> take the aftermarket battery out of the phone and charge it externally and
>> then replace it. Nobody is going to do that. One reason is that it
>> protects Samsung (in the event of fire or explosion) and it protects the
>> phone.
>>
>> In the case of ink it protects the printer from the possibility of being
>> ruined and it ensures the customer is getting the results the printer was
>> designed to provide.
>
> But it's our printer, we can put anything we want into it, and use it
> as a flower pot if we so desired.
>
> The complaint is they shrank the size of the cartridges. What the
> hell? Will the printer explode if they used 26ml pigment black and
> 13ml dye? Since they have 6 tank, 7 tank, and 8 tank models I HIGHLY
> doubt it. It looks like a cash grab to me.
>
> But again, it's our printer. For example one of the best hacks for
> the canons is magnetic ink. It allows you to print checks from your
> printer, a VERY handy feature.
>
On Sep 24, 6:01 pm, Arthur Entlich <e-printerh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> Further, nothing justifies the continual reduction of size and yield on
> inkjet ink cartridges, well nothing legitimate. Or starter cartridges
> being offered with a new printer.
I'm going to disagree with this somewhat. Given more ink = more mass
to move around, there is a legit reason to consider the volume mounted
on the head. If you own an idea desk and forget to mount the cross
members, you're going to get some shake and the larger the mass, the
larger the shake. This can always be resolved by mounting the inks
external to the head. I'm surprised canon doesn't do this on their
Pixmapro9000/9500. But thanks to the ip8500 and the mp960/970 we know
that it's reasonable to expect 104ml to be tossed around.
104ml represents either 8 BCI-6 tanks, or cli8 tanks and one PGI-5
tank.
The old volume was 26ml + 4x13ml = 78ml. I would "guess" the current
volume is 20ml + 4x11ml = 64ml
I don't see a technical reason for what I estimate as a 14ml
reduction.
> One thing to be aware of is not to just compare ink cartridge size, or
> weight, or even the volume of ink. Some design issues may make the ink
> get used much less rapidly due to head design changes, density of color,
> or simply less waste, and potentially vice-versa.
>
> Look at yield at a certain percentage of color coverage per page.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:01 pm, Arthur Entlich <e-printerh...@mvps.org> wrote:
>> Further, nothing justifies the continual reduction of size and yield on
>> inkjet ink cartridges, well nothing legitimate. Or starter cartridges
>> being offered with a new printer.
>
> I'm going to disagree with this somewhat. Given more ink = more mass
> to move around, there is a legit reason to consider the volume mounted
> on the head. If you own an idea desk and forget to mount the cross
> members, you're going to get some shake and the larger the mass, the
> larger the shake. This can always be resolved by mounting the inks
> external to the head. I'm surprised canon doesn't do this on their
> Pixmapro9000/9500. But thanks to the ip8500 and the mp960/970 we know
> that it's reasonable to expect 104ml to be tossed around.
> 104ml represents either 8 BCI-6 tanks, or cli8 tanks and one PGI-5
> tank.
Admittedly, the early Epsons had massive cartridges and the heads moved
considerably more slowly than current models with smaller cartridges.
Epson's larger pro printers do have annexed cartridges with feeder
tubes. The CIS offered for Epsons do the same. I assume the ones
designed for Canons are similarly designed.
>
>
> The old volume was 26ml + 4x13ml = 78ml. I would "guess" the current
> volume is 20ml + 4x11ml = 64ml
> I don't see a technical reason for what I estimate as a 14ml
> reduction.
>
That is a fair decrease of volume.
>> One thing to be aware of is not to just compare ink cartridge size, or
>> weight, or even the volume of ink. Some design issues may make the ink
>> get used much less rapidly due to head design changes, density of color,
>> or simply less waste, and potentially vice-versa.
>>
>> Look at yield at a certain percentage of color coverage per page.
>
> http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel...600_und_ip4600
>
> I agree, which is why I looked at a yield test before complaining
> about the cartridge size.
>
> A reduction from 525 pages of black text on the ip4500 to 350pages
> according to the ISO 24711 test page from Druckerchannel.
> http://www.druckerchannel.de/artikel...600_und_ip4600
>
> Thats a 47% reduction.
> OUCH
>
That's substantial for a $2 decrease in list price (I that's what I
recall being posted earlier). It doesn't look like any technological
advantages in the yield department, does it?
On Sep 24, 11:54 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:01:43 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote:
> > The printer manufacturers may imply these "features" are there to
> > "protect" the end user or the product. However, in a democratic trade
> > system, people get to choose how and what they wish to do, as long as it
> > doesn't put the individual or others at risk. The company's liability
>
> You are spouting off your usual holy than thou crap. In a democratic
> country the mfg can design what they want and the target consumer can
> choose if they want to buy it or not. That is capitalism.
What country do you live in? Many things are regulated. Cars have to
have emission control systems because without them we would be living
in a heavier smog layer than we do now.
While what you say is true, a printer manufacturer can CHOOSE to
release a 1ml cartridge @ $20/pop, this is an area that we need
regulated. So many consumers are shafted by those cheap *** printers
that cost 10c/page to print for text or higher.
The Canon iP4600 is advertised as having ink that costs less, but in
reality it costs about $10 extra per 1000 pages. Not only this, but
they are adding to the waste generated by the printers. I crunched the
numbers on my blog.
> > ends when the warranty runs out, but the protection methods do not.
> > Further, if indeed the companies could prove the use of 3rd party
> > consumables could damage the printer, they could void the warranty the
> > if teh 3rd party consumables were used. However, they haven;t been able
> > to lessen the warranty, because they have been unable to prove 3rd party
> > consumables damage the printer.
>
> That is in a case by case basis. By having prints that fade more rapidly
> it certainly damages the reputation of the mfg and they have a right to
> make it the way they want. Just like Samsung designed their cell phone to
> only charge Samsung batteries.
NO IT DOESN'T. It's very clear when you buy someone else's ink that
doesn't have the manufacturer's logo that it's not going to be the
same thing. It might be better, or worse, or about the same.
Samsung DOESN'T have the right to only sell their batteries for their
phones. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. You claim you went to
Standford, you should know about it. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/.../warranty.shtm
It means I don't have to buy a Ford battery for my Ford car. Now in
the digital world, they are doing their best to prohibit the behavior
by locking in things electronically and thus employing patent
protection on their products, but if you buy a product, it's yours to
do with as you place. I can take my printer and use it as a pot for a
plant. I can use it as a stool. I can put peanut butter in the
cartridges. It's MY product. I bought it, it's mine.
> > Further, nothing justifies the continual reduction of size and yield on
> > inkjet ink cartridges, well nothing legitimate. Or starter cartridges
> > being offered with a new printer.
>
> I am not saying I like it but they have a right to make 1 ml carts if they
> want and the public has the right not to buy it.
But here's the thing, I've not seen these cartridges advertised as
such. Canon has not yet released their page yields, only they "cost
less".
My motivation was sharing my observation, and my opinion. It is don't
buy the ip4600 they shrunk the size of their cartridges.
There is a considerable body of legislation in many so-called
"capitalistic democracies" (possibly an oxymoron) regarding restriction
of trade, anti-monopoly or anti-trust and anti-tying legislation which
indeed does restrict what manufacturers can do. These laws date back to
the 16 and 1700s in some cases. The Fair competition act in Europe
predates the US and Canadian legislation. Recent EU legislation
specifically prohibits the sale of printers which do not use refillable
cartridges. I suppose in nearly brain-dead Measekite's mind all those
countries are non-capitalistic. Those laws do restrict what
manufacturers can produce. There are lot of laws that control safety,
quality, warranty requirements, and many other aspects of the sale of
goods in the US. Some are federal, many of under state jurisdiction and
the states' attorney generals office is responsible. Once the sadly
lingering Bush administration goes and hopefully some of the upper
judicial branch starts to be replaced in teh US, hopefully they will
have a more balanced legal network to protect both end users and
manufacturers.
The printer industry has abused copyright and patent acts to try to get
around some fundamentals and hopefully as the bad boys of the Whitehouse
are booted out, some sense of fairness and environmental issues will
come to mind and legislation can follow.
As the end of the day, these dinosaurs will be forced to change kicking
and screaming either to change their ways or to deal with a very angry
population as teh consequences become more apparent.
I sense a legal cold wind blowing for printer manufacturers should they
continue to act irresponsibly in terms of high meas or wishing do not
control
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> On Sep 24, 11:54 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:01:43 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>> The printer manufacturers may imply these "features" are there to
>>> "protect" the end user or the product. However, in a democratic trade
>>> system, people get to choose how and what they wish to do, as long as it
>>> doesn't put the individual or others at risk. The company's liability
>> You are spouting off your usual holy than thou crap. In a democratic
>> country the mfg can design what they want and the target consumer can
>> choose if they want to buy it or not. That is capitalism.
>
> What country do you live in? Many things are regulated. Cars have to
> have emission control systems because without them we would be living
> in a heavier smog layer than we do now.
>
> While what you say is true, a printer manufacturer can CHOOSE to
> release a 1ml cartridge @ $20/pop, this is an area that we need
> regulated. So many consumers are shafted by those cheap *** printers
> that cost 10c/page to print for text or higher.
>
> The Canon iP4600 is advertised as having ink that costs less, but in
> reality it costs about $10 extra per 1000 pages. Not only this, but
> they are adding to the waste generated by the printers. I crunched the
> numbers on my blog.
>
> http://igepanda.blogspot.com/2008/09...artridges.html
>
>
>>> ends when the warranty runs out, but the protection methods do not.
>>> Further, if indeed the companies could prove the use of 3rd party
>>> consumables could damage the printer, they could void the warranty the
>>> if teh 3rd party consumables were used. However, they haven;t been able
>>> to lessen the warranty, because they have been unable to prove 3rd party
>>> consumables damage the printer.
>> That is in a case by case basis. By having prints that fade more rapidly
>> it certainly damages the reputation of the mfg and they have a right to
>> make it the way they want. Just like Samsung designed their cell phone to
>> only charge Samsung batteries.
>
> NO IT DOESN'T. It's very clear when you buy someone else's ink that
> doesn't have the manufacturer's logo that it's not going to be the
> same thing. It might be better, or worse, or about the same.
>
> Samsung DOESN'T have the right to only sell their batteries for their
> phones. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. You claim you went to
> Standford, you should know about it.
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/.../warranty.shtm
>
> It means I don't have to buy a Ford battery for my Ford car. Now in
> the digital world, they are doing their best to prohibit the behavior
> by locking in things electronically and thus employing patent
> protection on their products, but if you buy a product, it's yours to
> do with as you place. I can take my printer and use it as a pot for a
> plant. I can use it as a stool. I can put peanut butter in the
> cartridges. It's MY product. I bought it, it's mine.
>
>>> Further, nothing justifies the continual reduction of size and yield on
>>> inkjet ink cartridges, well nothing legitimate. Or starter cartridges
>>> being offered with a new printer.
>> I am not saying I like it but they have a right to make 1 ml carts if they
>> want and the public has the right not to buy it.
>
> But here's the thing, I've not seen these cartridges advertised as
> such. Canon has not yet released their page yields, only they "cost
> less".
> My motivation was sharing my observation, and my opinion. It is don't
> buy the ip4600 they shrunk the size of their cartridges.
>
What's the deal with the ip4600? 
Linear Mode
