The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

best, Aaron in N. Hollywood

On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Aaron Epstein)
wrote:

>The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
>inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
>money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
>quantity.
>
>Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
>are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?
>
>best, Aaron in N. Hollywood

This just got discussed in dpreview forums. The consensus: BS
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

Aaron Epstein wrote:

>The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
>inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
>money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
>quantity.
>
>Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
>are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

I haven't read that CR issue, but like most of CR's stuff, their "tests"
are often based on deliberately limited sources.

For example, if you buy a couple of the cheapest brands of universal
cartridges you can find, and they suck, does that mean all brands suck?

No, of course not.

But CR does exactly that and then publishes reports based on their
skewed data. Good quality ink is available at lower costs than original,
but CR wouldn't test those because it doesn't meet their criteria and
agenda.

Also, CR is well known to have biased reports that favour certain
manufacturers needs and wants. There are many an article that reports
the exact opposite of the known truth. This is due to funding
issues...they get funding for their independent testing from the
manufacturers, suppliers, and various other companies, and charitable
organizations. Of course, there's a huge conflict of interest in many of
their reports, but CR never mentions all the fine details about their
funding in the reports.

Imagine a printer company coming to you with a $100,000 donation and
asking you to do a report on third-party inks. Would you shaft them and
lose any further funding? I don't think so.

So to sum it all up...Consumer Reports is full of ****.

On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Aaron Epstein) wrote:

>The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
>inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
>money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
>quantity.
>

Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?

Malev wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Aaron Epstein)
> wrote:
>
>> The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
>> inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
>> money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
>> quantity.
>>
>
> Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?

CU does not need bribes to make irrelevant, misleading, or just plain
erroneous judgements for their readership. The organization is, after
all, predicated on people needing someone else telling them what is
good, bad and indifferent. They find a ready supply of readers who fit
the profile.

Q

Sounds like you are part of the majority that you have itemized in your
diatribe.

Isn't it good to just like everyone else??


<:
: In short, with a 90% functional illiteracy, it doesn't matter much
: what CR writes. If you can read, and you give a ****, you are reading
: the wrong magazine.
:
: Jim
:
:
:

Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in newsbqdnX59090ZbOndRVn-(E-Mail Removed):

> So to sum it all up...Consumer Reports is full of ****.

Consumer Reports probably reviewed the type of cartridge that the clueless
consumer will buy.


Someone posting in here asking about the quality of ink carts is already
heads and shoulders above the average consumer.

--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Given the limited selection available in
> stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
> sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)

Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the average
consumer would use.

Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we like to
admit it or not.

--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:01:42 -0600, "Quaoar" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>CU does not need bribes to make irrelevant, misleading, or just plain
>erroneous judgements for their readership. The organization is, after
>all, predicated on people needing someone else telling them what is
>good, bad and indifferent. They find a ready supply of readers who fit
>the profile.
>
>Q
>
While it's true that "CR does not need bribes to make irrelevant,
misleading, or just plain erroneous judgements for their readership,"
this is the result of writing for an audience that does not have
special requirements and just wants to deal with what it finds at the
local store.

In short, a typical American Idiot (see the new reality program at
your local electronics superstore) has no interest in refilling or in
ordering ink carts by mail. Given the limited selection available in
stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)

Just because you may not be a typical American Idiot, does not mean
that CR is trying to mislead you -- you are just looking for
professional advice in a magazine that caters to an audience that
doesn't care.

A bigger problem is that an estimated 30% of Americans can't read, and
an estimated 40% more of Americans won't read if there's any
alternative like watching television commercials. As evidence, printed
documentation is no longer supplied with software (and even hardware).
About 10% read suspense, adventure, murder, and romance novels, not
necessarily in that order. The remaining 20% spend their time flaming
on Usenet news groups, where they prove they can't read accurately or
spell accurately.

In short, with a 90% functional illiteracy, it doesn't matter much
what CR writes. If you can read, and you give a ****, you are reading
the wrong magazine.

Jim

Lucas Tam wrote:

>Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in newsbqdnX59090ZbOndRVn-(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> So to sum it all up...Consumer Reports is full of ****.
>
>Consumer Reports probably reviewed the type of cartridge that the clueless
>consumer will buy.
>
>Someone posting in here asking about the quality of ink carts is already
>heads and shoulders above the average consumer.

I AM NOT!

Oh wait, you meant that as a compliment...



By the way, I knew CR was full of **** long before I started reading
newsgroups. My father is a techie, and he got me interested in all sorts
of electronics at a young age. By the time I was 15, I had a better
sounding stereo system than most well-off adults, and was trashing CR
back then when they would review some garbage like Bose speakers and
claim they sound the best...ugh.