Re: ink consumption of Epson 1200

[Rick LePage <rl@macintouch.com>]

Jerry -

It's the old razor-razor blade analogy at work here - thank Gillette 
Safety Razor Co. for this one.

the $$ isn't in the hardware, it's always been in the consumables. That's 
why the laser printers dropped so fast in price about 5 years ago. 
(That's also why dye-sub never made it - they couldn't get the price down 
of either the hardware _or_ the consumables to a point that made sense 
for small shops.) 

HP was actually the first big guy in the peripherals biz to base their 
model on Razor/Blade, and everyone else copied them.

I do think Epson ought to make bigger tanks, even on the low-end models, 
and I think it will happen in the next couple of years (!), with the 
third-generation photo printers. HP is once again leading the way with 
products like the 2500C, which still has that 'HP' look in the output, 
but it also has individual ink tanks and a nice price point.

The small tanks in the Photo 700 are the real problem, imho - if you 
print anything bigger than 4x6, you're SOL after 10-20 pix...

For large-format printing, the scale just increases - yeah, you got more 
ink, but you got more paper as well.

fwiw,
rick

>Someone figured out you pay 8000 dollars a gallon for ink when its
>bought in small cartridges. If that isn't a rip off I don't know what
>is. Of Course they have a right to charge whatever they want. But look
>at the money they lost in the archival ink market when 5 different
>companies are making archival inks for THEIR printer!


----------------->                            <-----------------
Rick LePage                                    rl@macintouch.com
http://www.macintouch.com/                        
----------------->                            <-----------------


-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.