But to answer Wayne directly: The advocacy issue is this. It absolutely sets my hair on fire to see all the misinformation put out by people that know NOTHING about third party inks... never used them, never tested them, never did anything but pontificate and spread FUD about all the "risks" that they know nothing about!
Well, while I agree I don't use them, and generally don't recommend them, to imply from that I don't know anything about them is incorrect. I have tested many different inks over the years in a fairly high production facility. I've tested various CIS systems to use in producing high volume folded cards, as well as other inks for other solutions. I now own a retail store which sells printers, and have seen several with problems due to 3rd party inks. Whether I've tested the specific inks you've mentioned I don't know, since I don't remember all the brands, but I never found one that delivered the same image quality including all properties of gloss, gloss differential, metamerism and bronzing as Epson inks.
Canon may be different and indeed Canon inks in printers before the current ipf63/8300 series had their own minor issues with these things so indeed 3rd party inks may be just as good. Since the heads are user replaceable, the risk of ruining the printer isn't much of a factor but there are still many factors to consider other than just the pure cost of the ink. While certainly your expectations may be met by these inks, I don't think anyone knows what kind of printing you do ... which is certainly a key perspective. For all I know you crank out signs that get hung on the side of buses (great business, have a friend that does that), and if so I'd be all over 3rd party inks. I also don't know what the OP is interested in. So as I mentioned there are two sides, what you are calling FUD really isn't, as many of us have first hand knowledge of various inks and anyone looking at using these inks should proceed cautiously. I'm not saying don't use them, just make sure you understand what you are getting.
I guess it all depends on what the client wants, but even if these 3rd party inks don't last for 100 or so years like Epson claims, who cares? In reality, for the average person who leaves the same print on their wall for literally decades? I think I'd be happy with 10 or so years. If your print fades after 50 or 60 years call me and I'll print another
Of course a generalization. Being from a portrait photography background and knowing that large images of mine from over 30 years ago are still on walls, as well as millions of images from my previous company stored away in albums for future generations, I see longevity from a different perspective. Even in my landscape work which won't be regarded in the same way, longevity is still important. I'm pretty happy knowing several decades ... but if it's only 10 years I'd go back to photo paper which is cheaper to produce anyway and can manage several decades under most circumstances.
The real point I'm trying to make is when analyzing costs, you need to understand the costs at the print level, and not get sidetracked by the cost of the entire cartridge. Using the OP's logic, it may make more sense to buy a printer that just uses bigger ink cartridges. One reason I run the 11880 ... sure a 700ml cartridge is over $200, but the cost per ml is only .34. This translates to to only about 1% of the total cost of producing a wholesale image, and about 1/2 of 1% of the cost of a personal image I'm selling.
Two ways to look at it, and two very different business models. I don't know which the OP is in, but most on this forum are printing there own work to sell directly to their own clients, meaning the ink costs per print are pretty insignificant.
I think we've beat this horse, I hate getting sucked in. Unlike Tom, I don't enjoy arguing, and really don't understand why people make so many assumptions and generalizations, especially those who think their own personal situation applies to everyone. And I'll never understand why anyone attacks anyone (such as the assumption that I'm poor, thus a poor businessman thus my opinion has no value as happened earlier in this thread).