So Epson recently announced that it has finally ‘killed’ the cartridge. With its new EcoTank technology, it boasts of a new way of seeing (or printing) things. Sounds revolutionary, but is it, really?
For those who don’t know, Epson is the maker of some of the best and efficient printer models out there. Recently though, they made an announcement about a new series of printer models that will not only drive down printer costs (does your child enjoy printing so many colored photos from the Internet?), but will also make owning such printer models a convenience in the long run.
Say hello to EcoTank. Epson’s website calls it “UK’s first branded printer with refillable tanks.”
The EcoTank model series comes with 4x70ml bottles that contain 2 years’ worth of printing. So you can almost just forget about storing so many ink cartridges for those late night printing emergencies.
Read also: Apple is going back to smaller screens!
So the idea is for you to just refill your tanks with Epson ink from Epson bottles. These bottles are resealable and drip-free, so you won’t have to worry about spilling. Epson also thinks that you will like to buy these bottles in bulk, saving more money in the long run.
But is this technology revolutionary?
Revolutionary or legalized version of the old system
We have known Epson as a quality printer maker, but some of its models have been subject to guerilla-modification in the past already.
In some parts of the world, the EcoTank is also modified as InkTank. So it’s really not a new thing.
Also, there’s this technology called CISS or Continuous Ink Supply System, which modifies some inkjet printer models into having a system where ink supply never ends. All you have to do is to refill the tanks as you like.
And the ink refills are very, very cheap. Searching through Alibaba, and you’ll get the inks at very low rates.
So the buzz about Epson’s EcoTank is really nothing. It just seems to be a legalized version of the old system. This technology has been around for more than a decade now.
Unless, of course, you still beg to differ.