[QUOTE=beowulff]
I don’t think that’s the case. The intent is to make it impossible to manufacture a compatible cartridge :“CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers.” My take on this is that the printer manufacturers would like to create a non-refillable, non counterfeitable ink cartridge. It might be possible to circumvent these measures, by I can think of ways to make it extremely difficult to do. If they succeed, the after-market printer ink refill business is dead (for these new printers).
[/QUOTE]
And within 6 months, a manufacturer in Taiwan or China will be marketing a new printer which allows you to (gasp) buy ink any place you want to.
These days, printers are darn near disposable equipment, and brand loyalty is close to non-existant. The buying population isn’t going to continue to support a company that tries to put something like this in place.
Unfortunately, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Most people are completely clueless when it comes to technology. Just ask the average cell phone buyer. The vast majority just put up with paying 99¢ for a ringtone, instead of going with a service that allows direct computer uploads.
[QUOTE=beowulff]
I don’t think that’s the case. The intent is to make it impossible to manufacture a compatible cartridge :“CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers.” My take on this is that the printer manufacturers would like to create a non-refillable, non counterfeitable ink cartridge. It might be possible to circumvent these measures, by I can think of ways to make it extremely difficult to do. If they succeed, the after-market printer ink refill business is dead (for these new printers).
[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that this is only an antitrust violation if the printer company is using an existing monopoly in one market (say, printers) to create a monopoly in another market (say, cartridges).
Thus, my understanding is that so long as no single printer manufacturer doesn’t hold a monopoly, it’s not illegal for all of them to try to require their customers to get ink refills only from them.
[QUOTE=Cazzle]
I usually advise customers who are tossing up between a couple of different models to wander over to our cartridge section and compare the prices to help them make their decision. It’s usually the best piece of advice I can offer.
[/QUOTE]
Abso-freaking-lutely.
I understand the theory about bundling printers or selling them at or below cost so you can make money on the ink. But it’s hard for the consumer to not feel like they’re getting gouged when the manufacturer charges $60 or $70 for a pair (b/w & color) of inkjet cartridges for a low end printer.
I have a small business/home office for which I purchase a couple of computers a year. About half come bundled with printers, and I never take them out of the box. They’re all crap – slow, poor print quality, and they gobble print cartridges like a kid eating Pez candies. A good, mid-range printer (200-300 bucks) lasts longer and costs less to operate over the long haul.
[QUOTE=beowulff]
I don’t think that’s the case. The intent is to make it impossible to manufacture a compatible cartridge :“CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers.” My take on this is that the printer manufacturers would like to create a non-refillable, non counterfeitable ink cartridge. It might be possible to circumvent these measures, by I can think of ways to make it extremely difficult to do. If they succeed, the after-market printer ink refill business is dead (for these new printers).
[/QUOTE]
You really should read all the links before making assumptions.
The point is to avoid counterfeiting. Third-party manufacturers would simply be licensed, so they would have the appropriate technology. It would be the unlicensed counterfeiters who would be in trouble.
As I posted before, if the OEMs don’t allow licensing, THAT’s potentially a horse of a different color. Really, people, read what I write, please.
This addresses the you have to use Epson cartridges or your warranty is void issue.
[/QUOTE]
This only addresses “tie-in” provisions. If the only parts available that work are from the OEM, that’s a different issue. Again, this goes back to the issue of licensing the anti-counterfeiting encryption system.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
This only addresses “tie-in” provisions. If the only parts available that work are from the OEM, that’s a different issue. Again, this goes back to the issue of licensing the anti-counterfeiting encryption system.
[/QUOTE]
if they don’t license then that would be a back door tie-in right?
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
You really should read all the links before making assumptions.
The point is to avoid counterfeiting. Third-party manufacturers would simply be licensed, so they would have the appropriate technology. It would be the unlicensed counterfeiters who would be in trouble.
As I posted before, if the OEMs don’t allow licensing, THAT’s potentially a horse of a different color. Really, people, read what I write, please.
[/QUOTE]
Why in the world would they license the ink cartridge technology? That’s where most of the money is made. What incentive is there for the printer manufacturers to do so?
[QUOTE=Rick]
I will guarantee you that it will tell you in plain language that while you do have to do the routine maintenance to keep the warranty in effect, it does not have to be done at a dealer, or done with factory parts.
[/QUOTE]
Likewise, any Hewlett-Packard manual will tell you something along the lines of ‘HP recommends that you only use genuine HP supplies in your printer to guarantee the highest quality print.’
They don’t require it, they just recommend it, since if you follow that recommendation, you’re spending more money with them.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
The point is to avoid counterfeiting. Third-party manufacturers would simply be licensed, so they would have the appropriate technology. It would be the unlicensed counterfeiters who would be in trouble.
[/QUOTE]
Just because they’re not licensed doesn’t make them counterfeiters. A counterfeiter is selling an aftermarket product that uses deceitful packaging to make the end-user think they are buying an OEM product.
