Slashdot Mirror
Getting Around Printer-Manufacturer Abuse
An anonymous reader writes "Here's a guy that demonstrates how printer companies abuse their clients. He found that Lexmark cartridges are a perfect replacement for Xerox ones, with only minor modifications to the printer.
It's well illustrated with may photographs."
Don't use it if you don't like it. It's not like there are only 8 brand of printer. Oh wait...
...That Xerox tries to sue this guy to take down the information?
Not sure what law they'd pull out of their hat for the job, especially since this guy is not US based, but this just seems like it's raining on their parade a bit too much for Xerox to not pull out the lawyers.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Unfortunately, HP has different connectors on the back of their cartridges across their product line, which makes it impossible to use cartridges which doesn't officially support your printer.
Yes, I know that there might be valid reasons for this (e.g different and better features regarding to ink-economy etc), but why isn't it possible to enable some kind of "legacy-mode" to enable us to use any DeskJet print cartridge across HP's product line?
First off didn't read the article yet...but I can tell you that despite the bad practices of printer manufacturers, using third party stuff could void your warranty.
In this case, we have a tektronix (before xerox bought the printing division) that was damaged because someone moved it before properly letting the wax ink dry.
We had a xerox authorized rep, come and take a look at it, telling us how to try to fix it and telling us she suspected that the problem was two fold. Someone had moved the printer before letting the wax dry out into a solid, so that the wax liquid had gotten into some of the nozzles...and also she said that the damage was probably caused by our use of third party wax ink cartridges.
Something to do with the ink in the tektronic being a patented (term?) chemical mixture meant to work in a certain way when it was heated. Although you can use third party ink for it, it is not the same type of mixture and thus can have unexpected side effects.
So short answer is make sure you know what you are giving up by using third party stuff, as it may end up voiding your warranty and possibly ruining your printer (in this case an expensive $1,000 or so printer).
Sure for a cheap inkjet it probably doesnt matter, as if it breaks it's cheap to replace.
.... ... }
int main (void) {
this just reminds me of how they give you those "starter" ink cart. when you first buy the printer, some tell you, some dont...
had a brother fax machine at work once... "this is a sample toner cart. that will only make around 40 faxes" wtf? cheap ass brother...
nothing too new i guess....
"an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"
If cartridges were really overpriced, then a 3rd party would enter the market. That's capitalism 101.
Unless, of course, the cartidge connection design is patented. In which case, for the third party to enter the market they would need to negotiate a license for the patent which would essentially be equal to or greater than the profit made per unit.
But that's capitalism 202.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
That no one creates a standard for ink carts. If you want to make a cart for someones printer, fine, go for it, they all use the same exact cart, just ink quality will be different.
REmember when computer-parts were proprietary, did it help anyone? Did it make them 'better' no, it made them more expensive, and more of a pain in the ass.
But this will never happen, most inkjet companies make most of their $$ off of the ink, not the printer (think the gilette razor blade scheme, or xBox, but w/o the bonus secondary use)
Im glad
Now, comparing the Lexmark 12A1975 (the high-yield variant), we se that this has a list price of $40.99, compared to the Xerox part at $41.99. At amazon.com, you get them at $36.88 and $37.88 respectively.
I actually like that fact that Xerox doesn't seem to ship the low-yield variant.
And razor blades. That's the reason for non-standardisation - printers are cheap now, and they make the money selling cartridges. Don't expect standardisation any time soon.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Do we not all remember the stories about Lexmark and the DMCA ( ie Lexmark are sueing manufacturers of compatible toner under the DMCA ).
Lexmark products are also low quality and high priced. I'd prefer to buy from Xerox myself.
Boy did I feel dumb (and taken) when I found out the ink drys in about 3 months or so
So get a laserjet. My HP LaserJet4L has lasted me for over a decade now. The damn thing runs forever, and toner doesn't ever go bad, so if you only use it twice a year, a single $60 toner cartridge will last you forever.
Here's a thought. I've recently gone back to paying premium prices for "premium" razorblades. Why? The reasons probably run the gamut between cuts on my face and wishful thinking, but I'm convinced that the generic brands sold in supermarkets are not identical.
Yeah, we've all heard the "made on the same assembly line yada yada" argument, and indeed that may be perfectly valid in a number cases (or valid to the degree it makes any difference). But anyone who has experience in manufacturing knows that the process isn't necessarily as simple as it's made out to be here. Put another way, even top tier manufacturers put out "budget" brands that by definition skimp on materials, quality, etc. to bring down the cost so that the product can be sold at a cheaper price.
It's a desperate attempt to hang onto profits despite their product becoming a commodity.
They're trying to push the market uphill, by charging heavily for something that was cheap to make (the cartriges), and sooner or later the market will rebound. At which point the profit margins will fall out the bottom of the printer industry, all but the big few will go bust, and innovation will slow to a trickle.
Of course, if it hadn't been for the patent system totally distorting the market, they could never have pulled this stunt to begin with -- but had that happened, you would probably still be using dot-matrix.
No, this is just defeating hardware-based (i.e. physical) security. But, when they start doing things like putting codes in the cartridge to be read by the printer so they can locked to a specific manufacturer - or rather OEM ;-) - then you can't get around it... well, not without doing something that could lead to DCMA infringement. Still, this all looks like price-fixing to me... in a free-market, I should be able to source cartridges from any supplier, not just the original manufacturer... people, vote with your feet: only buy machines with Open Consumables (after all, there is Open Source, so why not Open Consumables!!! be Free as in right to choose) ... hey, have I just coined a new phrase?
as other posters have mentioned.
;-)
In Aust., they were selling unbelievably cheap moble phones several years back (might still be, I don't live there ATM) but you had to sign up to a rediculously expensive usage plan. Eventually the Govt. made the companies print an expected cost over 1 year of normal use on all advertising.
A similar regulation for printers might solve what is esentially the same problem in a different consumer sector.
Or we could just keep it in mind and calculate it ourselves. Are we not geeks?!
The man with no surname and a silly hat
On the universe: It's bunk.
Speaking as an author who actually does have to deal with 500 page manuscripts on a regular basis, I've learned quite a bit about printers. I started off with a dot matrix when I was in university, and then, when I was moving to my apartment in Kingston, had to choose between a laser and an inkjet.
I'll freely admit, even now, that a dot matrix is much more economical than an inkjet. But, for the purposes of writing, they're just too slow. I don't have the time to have my printer occupied for an entire day printing out that book that I'm sending off to the publisher. So, the dot matrix was cancelled out immediately.
When I did my research on the inkjets, I learned one important thing - the inkjet printers sell for less than they cost to make. Every time an inkjet printer is sold, it's at a loss to the company making it. They make their money off the ink. I'm not sure if it's honest or not - I imagine if you're just going to be printing out the occasional webpage, it doesn't matter all that much. For a writer, though, it would be a disaster.
On to the laser printer. At the time I bought, the lasers were printing at least ten pages per minute, and the toner cartridges lasted (and still do) for around 3-6,000 sheets (I use a Brother). I can't complain about the print quality at all. As an author, the laser was the logical choice.
But here's the thing - I'm an author, but most people aren't. There are a lot of casual users who don't use that much paper with their computer at all. It takes them a year to print out what I would print out in a month. To them, a dot matrix or a laser printer is overkill.
I wonder, however, just how many people bother to do the research that I did before deciding which printer to buy.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Ahh, but the chips aren't in there to make the printer function. They're in there to screw the consumer out of being able to use 3rd party printer ink.
I have very little sympathy for the home printer industry. They didn't always run on this fly by night business model. Some peckerhead CEO woke up one morning and decided I shouldn't be able to print more than fifty pages with a $15 printer cartridge. Before this happend I bought a single dot matrix printer ribbon and used it for three or four months of light printing activity.
I don't use my desktop printer at all, and why in the world should I? The cartridges cost a lot, print a small number of pages and dry up if I don't use them within a certain amount of time. If it didn't come free with the computer I wouldn't own it.
If the printer industry wants to adopt an honest money-making business model, they should look to the firearms industry. The gun companies certainly don't try to limit what brand of ammo can be used in their firearms. A gun is chambered for a specific caliber, and that is the end of it. If using a different brand of ammo in the gun caused it to malfunction, the CEOS of these companies would find their asses in jail.