Above all, Epson can probably make more money on overpriced color cartridges. For users who only rarely print, a laser printer is cheaper anyway, since there are no problems with dried-up nozzles.
and moreover, the printing speed of lasers is incomparably higher than that of injects. I can't imagine that we would print out our projects containing thousands of docs on cartridges. Sustainability is fine but too much of everything is harmful.
Epson cites projections in 2026 as the basis for their decision, yet the criticisms are for today. Makes me wonder if the article was read as the criticisms don't make sense to me. Overpriced OEM cartridges applies across the board, regardless the brand, or if ink jet or laser. Ink jets today are achieving speeds of 40-60 ppm. Not yet matching the fastest lasers, but 3 years down the road will surely show more improvement, with many more affordable options moving down in price for SOHO environments too. Then there is the primary reason Epson notes - the environment! And I applaud them for that. While I am not a "tree-hugger", I am far from a denier to. We (or at least our grandchildren and their children) need more companies (and governments and individuals) stepping up to the plate today - before it is too late. As the article points out, inkjets consume less energy, create less pollution and have considerably fewer parts - particularly consumables that pollute our landfills. Do inkjets still have a ways to go? Of course. But inkjets are already preferred over laser for printing photos. And if you stay away from the entry level, budget (dare I say, "disposable"?) ink jets, text quality is more than acceptable for most applications these days. I think it important to point out that "hard copies" are almost a thing of the past. Electronic documentation is here to stay. And where hard copies are typically used, they just need to be legible. If published "book" quality printing is needed, professional print services are affordable and readily available in most areas.
Absolutely. Inkjet ink is one of the most expensive items per volume there is. Hopefully they can improve the technology. It's just kind of gross when you print a large color pic and it is wet and soggy when it comes out of the printer. I like the solid ink printers but those will probably end for similar reasons as the laser.
Sadly most of the time when a company says they do it for the environment it's just a way for them to earn even more money (while still giving a **** about the environment). Coming from a company with "ink sponge" counters and other bricked printers I'm skeptical. But it would be nice if company's would care about the planet we all live on.
Ink is expensive but don't forget that Epson is the company that introduced those big ink "tanks" that last a long time compared to tiny cartridges. This is a huge boon for consumers. And of course, companies are in business to make money, not just for profit, but to have the resources for R&D so they can stay innovative - and in business. So I think Epson earns some credit for not being too greedy here. I think folks need also realize that inkjet ink is NOT just a bunch of pigment in water. It is some very high-tech stuff specifically designed to extrude in precise droplets out those jets, consistently, time after time, then not bleed when it hits the paper. That's the problem with 3rd party inks, BTW. Consumers have no guarantee of color accuracy or consistency between batches and brands. I am NOT defending them because I think OEM inks (and toners) are too expensive too. I am just saying I understand why it is not cheap - especially when consumers keep demanding cheaper and cheaper printers in a very competitive market. I mean, realistically, how can any company expect to turn a profit on a $39 color All-in-One printer? And if Walmart is selling it for $39, imagine what they paid Canon for it. Gross? Ummm, okay. But I don't really see this as a problem. It dries quickly. It has to, otherwise, with duplex printing, it would smear when the sheet is flipped to print on the other side. Yeah, solid ink is nice (and gorgeous!). But very expensive.
This explains it but does not justify it (in my opinion). Inkjet ink still really isn't that good. I've never seen any that was decently water resistant. Why is Printer Ink SO Expensive? Facts on Printer Ink Costs | Printer Ink Cartridges | YoYoInk
Really? That's what is important to you? Sure, nobody wants their document ink to wash away when wet. But maybe they should take better care to keep them from getting wet? Waterproof or even water resistant ink is way WAY down the list for me - especially since paper itself is not waterproof so there's no hiding the fact it got wet at some point in time. If the document was that important, even if a laser printout, I would likely just print out another copy - then file it in a safe (dry) place. Or use Workable Fixatif on it. Or both. Now if one prints a lot of postal labels, for example, that may be exposed to the weather, water resistance may be an issue. But again - we really need to see what happens in 3 years.
Easier said than done. A single drop of moisture on a document can make it unreadable. Somebody sneezes or yawns and gleeks on it and you have to print another. Which can get expensive. Gross examples but it happens.
Inkjet-like printers which produce water-proof printouts that will survive moisture and drenching threats are well beyond the focus of products targeting the consumer marketplace, a "paper" having a considerable role to that end as well. Pigmented and oil-based inks fall into the water-resistant category for printouts that are less likely to suffer moisture damage when used with a quality color laser paper (has a "shiny" surface, not photo glossy unless you want that). Dye based inks are not water-resistant. Most mid-to-higher end $$$ printers offer both dye and pigmented inks, oil not so much. I do recall there's an aerosol spray in a can that can be applied to printouts meant to reduce the effects of sneezes or yawns and gleeks but I'm too lazy to googuhl for that. I enjoy my Brother laser printer and they'll probably take up some of the slack of Epson's exit. But having several ink jet printers over the decades, 98.328% of the time I've had to replace cartridge(s) was because I didn't print enough and they dried out or clogged up. I got into the habit to print something, anything every now and then. But I do miss the minutes of kerchunk-kerchunk-whirr-whirr-bzzz-bzzz-swoosh-swoosh-bzzz-bzzz-whirr-whirr-kerchihnk-kerchink almost every time the printer was called up to work. Pull up a chair and pop open a can of suds. (Not to mention replacement head squeegees and ink dump pad/sponges used during that process were never made available for purchase, let alone easy access.) And the mechanical cacophony of a high-speed dot matrix printer as it shakes on its stand and rattles surrounding bric-a-brac... Sigh.
Gee whiz dude! I am not 10 years old! I've been around home and office printers since BEFORE there were home and office printers - or PCs to connect to them. Of course "it happens". Hardly the point. And by the way, if someone sneezes all over your document printed by a laser printer, are you just going to wipe it off with your hand? Or are you going to gingerly hold it with two fingertips, drop it in the trash and print another? I have seen things spilled on printouts you could not even imagine would get spilled on them. They still got reprinted.
