Originally Posted by Digerati

Insult your intelligence? Hyperbole? Scare mongering? Hypocrisy? Look at your own posts. Then note your own statement again about common sense.

Is this a thing with you, not replying to questions put, loosing the argument, then quote what others say out of context to save face.

I might add this thread was started by me, Joe and you hijacked it.

Huh? Just because WPM is not an expressed specification, there is still a direct correlation between how fast a secretary can type a page of text and how fast a printer can print out that same page.

This is spouting nonsense and the obvious, what your saying is the quicker a secretary finishes a document the quicker the printer will have it to print out, of course but that has nothing to do with printer speed, which was the point I was making.

Have you bothered to do any research on this? I have. Often. I have conducted my own research for my own business, as well as for past employers, clients, and forum responses. The results:

• Do the OEMs charge a bundle for ink? Yes.
• Are 3rd party cartridges and ink legal. Some are some are not, depending on the cartridge and any patents.
• Will using "compatible" 3rd party consumables void my warranty? Not in the US/EU.
• Is damage caused by a faulty/incompatible 3rd party cartridge or ink covered by the warranty? NO! Although most makers will work with the consumer on a one-on-one bases
• Can you save money if you refill or buy 3rd party cartridges? Maybe.
• Do 3rd party cartridges and ink produce the same quality printout? Some times.
• Are there risks? Absolutely!!!!!
  

Don't believe me? No problem. Read on.

None of the above is in contention and again stating the obvious, I would imagine these facts are understood by almost every owner of a printer State wide, Europe and most other places on the planet.

PC World
judging from our experience, finding a reasonably priced substitute for brand-name ink can be a risky business. If top quality and print longevity aren't of paramount importance, you can save money using no-name inks--but you may have to spend a lot of time cleaning clogged printheads. Still, some users may find the savings justify the hassles.
If print quality--and especially durability--are a top concern, however, you're better off playing it safe by gritting your teeth and shelling out for brand-name inks.

AND

About Article, Should You Use Third-Party Ink Cartridges?
The bottom line? If you want to play it safe, stick with manufacturer's cartridges.

...it's a good idea to stay away from refillable cartridges -- especially the do-it-yourself kind. With rare exceptions, these are never as good as replaceable cartridges, and the potential for problems is much higher.

Rarely have I discussed a topic with anyone who quotes sources that shoots their opinions/arguments down in flames, these sources side with almost everything I have written.

The bottom line of these articles being the consumer should always exercise caution and common sense but it should remain their choice.

Not to mention the proliferation of counterfeit ink - a primary reason OEMs block the use of fakes/incompatibles.

Then it is a small primary consideration/reason and lets not forget the reason why these counterfeiters exist, ( and I do not condone in any way their actions ), is they feed off the anger of consumers because of the high prices of OEMs and the greed and profiteering of the printer manufactures, the bottom line being that both are ripping off the consumer.

The main primary reason why the use non-OEMs are blocked is simply to exercise control over the consumer and to keep OEM cartridge prices high.

Counterfeit ink and toner cartridges can ruin prints, spray ink, and permanently damage your printer.

We know this.

According to police and private investigators, these characteristics [simple to manufacture, yields enormous profits] make ersatz ink an ideal product for both organized criminals and terrorist groups.

Again the stuff of nonsense, show me one article that will stand up to investigation, written by a US police force or the FBI that shows a direct link, not an opinion, between fake ink and the bank rolling of a terrorists cause.

We are not talking about afake logos or fake perfume, for there to be any point in terrorists brewing ink so making sustainable profits for their cause and lets face it, terrorists are good at mixing ingredients, it has to work and there, I suspect, would lay the problem, it would do the job, so not so difficult to produce, terrorists indeed, utter clap trap.

Of course there is organized crime involvement but if Joe wants to go to the back of a lorry to purchase his print cartridges rather then a reputable source, then Joe pays for what he gets and if it doesn't work he won't be doing it to often, he'll cotton on, he'll exercise consumer choice.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with third party reputable companies, (whether their products are any good or not), being prevented from producing non-OEMs because of software or killer chips on OEMs, all that does is prevent consumer choice.

If I design/install a heating system, I don't design it to fail and neither do I install a system where another manufactures pump can't be used instead of that originaly used.

BTW - HP released the first inkjet - the ThinkJet in 1984 - over 20 years ago!

My apologies, I wasn't saying there weren't color inkjets, more that 15 years ago the average user had a dot matrix clattering away.

Lastly, even OEM ink clogs up nozzles and can screw a print head, that's why there is a cleaning facility in the software and I'm sure there must be printers out there that need regular decloging even when using OEM cartridges.

This conversation has run its course, I'm out of here.

No Digerati you have and I'm still in here.

I might add this thread was started by me, Joe and you hijacked it.

Actually, I was the first to respond to your call for help and attempted to provide some insight into this long standing issue. My mistake. But you are right, it has been hijacked, and run into the ground, and for my part in that, I apologize. As for Joe, he wisely stepped out of this train wreck a long time ago. My mistake again for not following his lead. But I will point out the irony (hypocrisy?) of you accusing Joe, but then you helped drive this hijacked mess for two pages after he bailed out!

The main primary reason why the use non-OEMs are blocked is simply to exercise control over the consumer and to keep OEM cartridge prices high.

Ahh! I see. I can't quote major reputable IT sites, - PCWorld or About - because they are not actual law enforcement agencies, but you can accuse these companies of "exercising control over the consumer" while providing no proof at all. Wow. But I'm the hypocrite and doing the scare mongering? Yeah, sure.

I will respond to one other of your silly accusations, and then waste these good folk's time no longer.

In response to my references that using 3rd party cartridges and ink are risky endeavors, you replied with the following:

Rarely have I discussed a topic with anyone who quotes sources that shoots their opinions/arguments down in flames

Since each of the sources I quoted concluded that using such products is risky, then they by no means shoot down my opinion, which from the beginning, has been the exact same message - using these products is risky, and to minimize those risks, stick with OEM cartridges.

You do have a choice - heed my advice, or not. I assure, I could care less what you do.

Originally Posted by Digerati

Actually, I was the first to respond to your call for help and attempted to provide some insight into this long standing issue. My mistake. But you are right, it has been hijacked, and run into the ground, and for my part in that, I apologize. As for Joe, he wisely stepped out of this train wreck a long time ago. My mistake again for not following his lead. But I will point out the irony (hypocrisy?) of you accusing Joe, but then you helped drive this hijacked mess for two pages after he bailed out!

I have not accused Joe or you of anything in this respect (so no hypocrisy as you would have folk believe), I was pointing out it was my thread and you both hijacked it, I have no idea why Joe stepped out, he was doing just fine with you.

I don't understand, on the one hand you recognise a train wreck when you see one, on the other you keep buying a ticket to ride, now who is being silly.

Ahh! I see. I can't quote major reputable IT sites, - PCWorld or About - because they are not actual law enforcement agencies,-----

There you go again twisting and taking things out of context to suit a position you can no longer defend.

Not being law enforcement agency has nothing to do with what I was saying and well you know it

------ but you can accuse these companies of "exercising control over the consumer" while providing no proof at all. Wow. But I'm the hypocrite and doing the scare mongering? Yeah, sure.

I have never accused, suggested or believe that these companies practice any type of control over the consumer in the field we have been discussing, so once more the good folk you speak of will see you are twisting things, again you are being silly.

I do agree the above might exert some level of persuasion over consumer opinions and choices but that's their roll.

I will respond to one other of your silly accusations, and then waste these good folk's time no longer.

You are on your own here, I can't possibly know or say how many folk might be wishing this.

In response to my references that using 3rd party cartridges and ink are risky endeavors, you replied with the following: "Rarely have I discussed a topic with anyone who quotes sources that shoots their opinions/arguments down in flames"
Since each of the sources I quoted concluded that using such products is risky, then they by no means shoot down my opinion, which from the beginning, has been the exact same message - using these products is risky, and to minimize those risks, stick with OEM cartridges.

I repeat this has never been in contention on this thread and is good advise.

However the above is not really the issue in discussion, that being, I have a printer that has been rendered useless unless I use that printer manufactures cartridge and pay their price.

Your contention among other things is this is being done for my own good, you then attempted to muddied the waters by introducing elements such as counterfeits and terrorism, I repeat, the stuff of nonsense.

You also stated another reasons for not being able to purchase non-OEM cartridges from third party reputable companies was because of not meeting exacting standards of OEMs, again this was shown to be a pointless and fruitless argument.

I can only conclude that you not really countering with anything of note or worthy, have seen the gapping flaws in your arguments.

I and the good folk you mention can only be left to wonder that for someone who has researched the subject as you claim, why you insist on shooting yourself in both feet?

Tickkkkkets guv'.