joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

:thumbup:

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I agree with your position. I have been using Epson printers, including E size for over 25 years. Their ink works and I have never had a problem that wasn't related to something stupid that I caused. I think they are a fine company and I appreciate the quality they have afforded me over the years.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Geezer54

You two could almost come across as Epson shareholders. But no I don't seriously think that is the case. Nor do I think that would be the only, let alone a necessary scenario to account for someone's loyalty to Epson -or for that matter to Levi Strauss, or to GM, or to the Toronto Maple Leafs, or to any of the innumerable other consumer product entities out there.

Loyalty involves 'feelings' a great deal more than it does the impartial, the rational, that is the part of our faculties enabling us to see what is and what isn't, what we know and what we cannot, and the partial degrees of certainty possible vs. uncertainty present in between.

Now, to tie all this in to the topic of this thread (though -in order to more quickly move on here- kind of abruptly, I realize): Good quality in products is hardly necessarily tied to the good faith integrity of a company's consumer marketing model, strategy and methods (or more appropriate to the case here, stratagem and tactics).

One more thing, the tactics being reported and ranted about here about Epson in this thread, are today being followed by all of the inkjet printer companies, effectively holding the consumer hostage to them. It wasn't always this way e.g. 25 years ago. Back then, as I recall, it was just Lexmark doing this low front end price/high price replacement ink scam. (Then at least the astute consumer could choose to stay away from Lexmark -as many did- and pay a higher front end price -that is, for the printer itself- for one of the mainstream name brand printers, which hadn't at that time as yet, gone to the current, and parasitic, high-priced replacement-ink based arrangement. Thus you paid only once, a known and measurable price, for your printer purchase; not like now, paying the cost of your purchase over and over again for ever and a lifetime.) Some time later on Epson decided to follow the same model and has ever since, with steadily growing rigor and aggressiveness, seized tighter and tighter digital control to increase their stealth ability to sabotage non-OEM competiton replacement ink use; btw, this defying the spirit of laws and court rulings meant to curb, if not prohibit such behavior. Today they are all (i.e. HP, Canon, etc) following this practice; albeit Epson still being it appears the more aggressive.