I recently bought a Canon MP495 (scanner/printer) for use on various job sites. The fine print on the box also said something to the effect that the ink cartridges supplied are not full when shipped.
At least there's some consistency between their high end and low end printers.
People like to complain about gaz price, but they happily buy bottled water, which is more expensive and alternatively available for free.
I don't understand why so many people feel the need to buy a printer and jerk around with it. Just pay someone who knows what they are doing to print it for you. It is far less expensive and the quality is better too.
Inkjet printers are one of the biggest ripoffs of all the equipment we use to make photographs.
Here's a different perspective. When you go into business and print with ink and paper all day, ink is a relatively small expense. If you printed professionally and watched the numbers it's likely you would see that for every $1 you make you spend $0.02-$0.03 on ink, $0.15-$0.20 on high quality papers, $0.30-$0.40 on labor, $0.02 on packaging, and the remaining covers your expenses.
My bet is if you multiply the time you spend making a print by minimum wage, that amount would be much greater than what you spend on ink.
This amateur agrees with Ken. The ink for a 10x14 print costs nearly one dollar. If the Epson 3800 failed totally, initial cost, maintenance, and depreciation for its lifetime would be even less. Premium paper costs over a dollar. A window mat and mount board total $8. A 16x20 frame with glass and foamcore backing costs $20. That's around $30 for the photo ready to hang, with less than a dollar of that in ink.