S
SteveG
I've snipped a lot of this post to keep it short and to the point.
SG: WIR are indeed the world leaders in the field of testing inks and I
generally read their newsletters with great interest. Unless I missed
something, their latest test (May 2006) results only showed significant
inferiority with respect to permanence. If, like me, you don't intend to
keep printed documents and images for long periods of time then it isn't
an issue. I never asked for respect, by the way.
SG: Why do you think that Pantone - well respected in their field -
would be acceptable as an after-market ink carts maker but not one of
the existing manufacturers? Is it just because Pantone has some brand
awareness?
On the subject of quality and quality assurance, how can you be 100%
certain that your oem ink is actually up to specification? I've never
seen cartridges with serial numbers or QA stickers on them. There's no
traceability at all.
SG: What utter rubbish. Every company has it's "trade secrets" .. it's
what gives them a competitive edge. Of course you have a right to know
what you're buying but no right to know the details of how it's made. I
don't remember the GM case, primarily because I live on the right side
of the pond. Has anyone taken Land Rover to court yet for not stating
that the diesel engine in the D3 is a joint development between Ford and
Peugot and the petrol engine is from Jaguar?
Now let me clue you in on something. OEM inks, as you said are
overpriced. You deal with a relabeler. They buy ink in large bulk from
who know (they may no even know who is the formulator either) repackage
and relabel it (many times inaccurately) and resell it to people who do
not know what they are getting. The ink as tested by Wilhelm Labs is
inferior as to quality and longevity when compared to OEM ink. Wihelm
is the most respected name in the industry. You do not command that
respect.
SG: WIR are indeed the world leaders in the field of testing inks and I
generally read their newsletters with great interest. Unless I missed
something, their latest test (May 2006) results only showed significant
inferiority with respect to permanence. If, like me, you don't intend to
keep printed documents and images for long periods of time then it isn't
an issue. I never asked for respect, by the way.
I am not against choices and I do wish that a reputable mfg, for
instance Pantone, would mfg refilled carts for all of the printers and
sell them under their own name (so they can be tracked for quality) and
properly package then and sell them in all stores and venues. That is
not the case now so what you have is a bunch of fly by nites repackaging
junk the get from China. And we all know what comes from there like Pet
Food Tootpaste and Cough Syrup with all of the illicet chemicals in it
and who knows what is in the ink..
SG: Why do you think that Pantone - well respected in their field -
would be acceptable as an after-market ink carts maker but not one of
the existing manufacturers? Is it just because Pantone has some brand
awareness?
On the subject of quality and quality assurance, how can you be 100%
certain that your oem ink is actually up to specification? I've never
seen cartridges with serial numbers or QA stickers on them. There's no
traceability at all.
More stupid talk. A customer is allowed to know what the reseller is
selling them.. Remember GM was sued for putting a Chevy engine in
tgheir Old carts without disclosing it to the customer.
SG: What utter rubbish. Every company has it's "trade secrets" .. it's
what gives them a competitive edge. Of course you have a right to know
what you're buying but no right to know the details of how it's made. I
don't remember the GM case, primarily because I live on the right side
of the pond. Has anyone taken Land Rover to court yet for not stating
that the diesel engine in the D3 is a joint development between Ford and
Peugot and the petrol engine is from Jaguar?