The ink disappears if you don’t pay your subscription fee.
It’s amazing libraries have managed to stay true to their goal and not charge membership fees. Should authors be getting residuals on every read of their book in the same way every Netflix play of a movie pays an actor???
The movie industry would cease to be an industry otherwise. It would become all indie movies, Cannes and the like and maybe some state sponsored propaganda. So no Spiderman or X-men for you, just movies about real life, Sweedish movies about the super rich getting marooned on an island after a storm and ending up at the mercy of the housekeeper.
Uhm, that would be great. Not having my Cinema filled with comic book (or whatever the flavor of the decade is) trash but quality passion projects from people that actually care about art sounds amazing. And most money would go to actual artists and not faceless mega corps.
This is actually not such a bad idea for liquid inks. Terrible idea for toner though.
Those liquid cartridges are always drying up essentially causing you to throw away money you spent. For this type of cartridge getting the cartridge replaced frequently puts the burden on them and saves you money if you don't print much.
For toner it makes more sense to just buy the cartridge and hold on to it.
I mean the cartridges could just be designed to last longer, I'd bet you their high capacity models for this program do since now the cost benefit leans towards that...
Yeah I was going to address this but deleted that part of my comment. Fundamentally I think there are design limitations.
I used to work in IT at a public school district 15 years ago where they had hundreds of Epson printers with fixed printheads. This saved costs in the cartridges but the inks(which were designed to produce excellent photographic results) had some substance that caused them to clog up these very microscopic printheads essentially rendering the printheads and thus the printer destroyed. This happened a lot on printers where people would only print once in a blue moon.
Seems like you can have two options: poor quality but thin water based inks. I'd argue Laser had taken that market away from inkjet for good. The other option is hight quality photographic ink that is much thicker and gels up easier. Not to mention the printheads are more delicate due to their finer pitch.
That would require some incredible chemistry and engineering. It's just a fact of life that liquids are volatile substances and not shelf-stable once the seal is broken. Toner is superior because it's an inert solid powder.
You realize there's options between "lasts indefinitely" and "dries up if you don't use it every day" right?
Even within different lines from the same manufacturers I remember that varied because of the design of the cartridge.
And similarly commercial printers would be more aggressive about automatically ensuring the cartridge ran every once in a while than home ones. All things they could (and probably did) tweak when moving to this model
It's not the cartridge that's the problem, it's the print head. Inkjet printheads have a large number of tiny nozzles that are fed by tiny lines (which resemble a ribbon cable). The Achilles' heel of the technology is that ink can dry up inside the lines and the nozzles and destroy the print head, necessitating replacement. To combat this printer manufacturers have designed the printers with automatic ink-flushing routines which keep them clear of drying ink. This wastes a lot of ink if you aren't printing every day.
It's fine to want something better. I, personally, gave up on inkjet printers and switched to laser a long time ago. I have only ever been an occasional printer but I always want a printer available for when I need it. I have no interest in photo printing either, so a laser is perfect for my needs. Perhaps you have different needs. I can imagine it being very frustrating if you want to print the occasional photo and are always finding the ink cartridge empty or dried up. Personally, if I wanted to occasionally print a photo I would probably get it done professionally rather than waste money on yet another inkjet printer.
The cost of a professionally printed photo is pretty cheap. For most people it is cheaper to have their photos printed professionally when they want one printed. You have to print a lot of photos per month to make the cost of a printer worth it. (I suspect beyond the duty cycle rating of cheap printers). I have a printer (laser!) anyway because while I don't print often, when I do I want it now, without having to get the kids ready and drive to a professional printer.
It’s amazing libraries have managed to stay true to their goal and not charge membership fees. Should authors be getting residuals on every read of their book in the same way every Netflix play of a movie pays an actor???