Without knowing Epson or Canon's engineering design criteria, I don't feel I could describe any aspect of their design decisions as 'stupid'. I might find some (such as the page length limit in the PRO-1000) curious, or unduly influenced by the dead hand of marketing, but modern inkjet printers are rather fine machines.
I've long felt that if the extra costs of heads/wasted ink make that much of a difference to someone, then they need to re-evaluate their business model.
For those of us that don't print that often, I prefer to think of owning and running a large format printer as not dissimilar to running a classic car ;-)
With all due respect Keith, you are in an interesting position in that you have to work with both Epson and Canon in order to receive the units for testing, but at the same time trying to remain impartial in order to do a proper review. But with this in mind, I don't think you're in a position to actually be too negative about any one of these machines and simply have to say the choice is curious. I'm sure that some of the decision made come from marketing departments, and some decisions come from a cost perspective for both Epson and Canon, but many of us can see that in many industries, some companies fail to see the light, even when their competitor is eating their sales. In this day and age with lots of options, there just isn't as much room to give the customer a crappy product and expect it to sell. If there are good options out there, the power of social media and the web will of course very quickly allow people to share their experiences.
I would love to be selling prints that people pay me hundreds of dollars for, but unfortunately, this isn't my market. I would love to say that these costs don't matter, but they do. When I look at buying a roll of canvas from Epson vs. from Simply Elegant, if that same roll is $20 cheaper for 40 feet, it means that I have an extra $20 in my pocket which I can use. My customer, after the canvas is stretched and coated will not see the difference or care, but my wallet will. If I waste 7ml of ink, this could be the equivalent of 2 16x24 prints. Of course the paper does cost more than the ink, but I still prefer that ink going on paper than down the drain. And of course, its not even down the drain, its into an expensive plastic box lined with cotton that I have to pay money for. That is now about $60 I have to spend to replace it.
My point is that these little costs add up, and the time to switch over inks add up, and the time to print a nozzle check before each print (which you have to do with Epson) adds up, and then a cleaning cycle, this time adds up too, and of course all that ink.
You might say that if a person has to count these costs then it means that they have to re-evaluate their business model, but I say that Epson needs to re-evaluate their business model because ever since Canon came along, I'm sure they have lost lots of printer sales. I've owned an Epson 4000 and 4800 before, and both clogged like crazy. My Canon 6100 and 6400 have worked much better, but not trouble free. Epson though lost out on the sale of 2 24 inch models because I knew I wouldn't go to Epson again, and after each new model, they still give me no reason to go back.
I'm very curious to see how the new Canons do with their one head design and if it will be more robust. If the heads were cheaper to replace, replacing them wouldn't be a problem, but once again, a $500 expense is something that takes money away from somewhere else, so the less you spend here, the more you have elsewhere.
