Quote:
Originally Posted by wodin
It would seem that Epson is abandoning the Gillette model of monetizing the consumables in favor of taking the profit up front. That might be a good thing for high usage customers, but for the average home user who might print ten to one hundred pages per month it's not very economical (unless they're like my wife who's favorite key combination is ctrl-P). I'm not sure where the cross over in terms of print volume is, but a $100US printer that I might use 3 sets of cartridges in it's lifetime is still cheaper than a $500US printer. Besides, at some point the non replaceable print heads are bound to get clogged up.
|
For low volume, seldom printing ink is not really economical any way you look at it. If you are willing to spend $100 on a printer and don't need color might as well just get a cheap wireless laser printer. Printing photos (where I could see color being necessary) at home with an inkjet is rather expensive when you look at the cost of ink and good paper. Much cheaper and better quality by outsourcing printing photos to Walmart (or any other convenience store of your choice). Who prints out photos anymore regularly? It is not necessary to print so you can share them or show them off. If I hang a picture on the wall, I personally don't skimp on quality by printing it at home. Want anything bigger than 8x10? Good luck at home. Poster size print - e.g. a 36x24? Close to impossible at home unless you got more money than sense.