EstherP wrote:
What does the manual that comes with the printer, say about using "aftermarket" or "other-brand" inks?EstherP
Duh, the manual is just a manual, not some kind of conditional use agreement.
EstherP wrote:
Seems to me there is a statement somewhere that tells you to use Epson inks only.EstherP
Manuals are for providing information for the consumer to experience maximum functionality of the product bought and paid for. Dictating mandatory commands, ordering the product owner as to what he shall and shall not do with his purchased item is just not the way manuals work.
EstherP wrote:
Is it really any different than using a lens by a different manufacturer than your own camera's, then having to buy an adapter to make it fit, and then having to change all the settings on that lens manually?EstherP
Not sure of your logic here, but what is only too obvious though is that in the above scenario, the owner is free to attempt whatever modifications he wishes to with his own purchased property. Whether he is able to succeed or fail based on his abilities and/or the product's construction, in attempting such it is his rightful prerogative to go ahead and find out, not having to mention, that he be free from harrassment for so doing by what in fact constitutes an act of violence aggressively unleashed against his property, whether in person or through programmed code maliciously planted by its previous owner, the manufacturer.
EstherP wrote:
Or for certain car-parts, having to buy from the manufacturer because no other brand will fit or work?EstherP
Again, another analogy with no logical relevance to the issue just as the first, which is that of manufacturers actively and deliberately "booby trapping" the consumer's bought and paid for product so that if the owner doesn't comply with the company's arbitrary whims, the item will self destruct in its owners possession. This is not really very different from copyright content companies who randomly hack into consumer's computers with the intent of erasing audio and/or video works which the computer owner has stored on her hard drive; the rationale being those works could have been copied (whether legally or not legally) from someone else's purchased discs.
"As far as those times when it is the case that the consumer whose computer we broke into, leaving it's hard drive in a mess, was one who had actually had bought and paid price in full for these works that we corrupted and/or erased on her machine, she'll find the time to just upload these back again into her computer from the original discs she had originally purchased. This is of course provided she is deservingly smart enough to not have dispensed with those original discs... After all, we're big, we're mighty, and as long as we can get away with it, might equals right."
EstherP wrote:
If you consider the price of inkjet printers, you know right away that the company needs to get their earnings from the inks.EstherP
What the company *needs* to get, it is not the consumer's role to anticipate. The company will be the first to answer the question no differently and point out that the consumer's needs are none of their concern. Further, I think it is downright sleezy, schemingly manipulative way these companies boost their printer sales by presenting artificial low prices, while knowing those who couldn't afford to pay more will now be facing an enormous and forever rising cost to use (i.e. buy the ink for) their initially seeming "affordably priced" printer .
EstherP wrote:
I bought my Epson all-in-one for $69.00, a set of cartridges was $50. Go figure.EstherP
"Go figure"?? No, the word is more like, "Now that we got you to take the bate, it is from here on, go pay, and pay, and pay, and pay... for a printer whose real price ratchets higher again and again and again without limit...with each grossly price inflated ink purchase.
Geezer