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."

16 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. I think it's simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't use it if you don't like it. It's not like there are only 8 brand of printer. Oh wait...

  2. What do you want to bet by Russellkhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.
  3. HP by karevoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:HP by jcupitt65 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Part of the reason is that the cartridge you buy is just the ink + nozzles. There is a large chunk of hardware controlling the writing engine (the thing that decides which dots go where), and the design of this is intimately linked to the print head design. So you can't stick any print head into any printer.

      Of course, another part is business: different printer models have different business models behind them. Are they cheap upfront, but more expensive on consumables (typical for a consumer printer), or more expensive upfront but with lower running costs (typically a business printer)? Making the print heads incompatible allows the market separation that in turn allows these different strategies.

      Companies get ragged on for 'ripping off the consumer' over print head costs. But you can see it as a choice too. You can choose to buy a $100 printer with great quality (but admittedly expensive parts). Or you can spend $500 up front (nearer the actual cost of the device) and get a printer which will be more durable and will have lower running costs. 10 years ago your only choice was option #2. Now you have option #1 open to you if you want it.

  4. third party toner and ink by codeonezero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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) { ... }

    1. Re:third party toner and ink by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (please ignore the previous one, missed the preview button!) but I can tell you that despite the bad practices of printer manufacturers, using third party stuff could void your warranty. That's flat out untrue, despite printer manufacturers' attempts to the contrary. The only situation under which they are not required to support you under warranty is when the fault is actually IN the third party component. Of course, this means that whenever a repair technician comes out, they will invariably diagnose the fault to be the cause of the third-party component, as you discovered, even when it's something else entirely. Of course the ink is patented; but it's still just basic ink, and any reputable supplier will make stuff as good as, or better, than the original manufacturer. My personal advice is to replace any third party toner with some near-empty-but-some-left cartridges before they come to visit. You'll find the number of times your tech blames the problem on your cartridges way down. Failing that, when you suspect the problem is nothing to do with the toner, (i.e. it's anything other than a splotchy print issue) write to to their legal department pointing out that you feel they have invalidated your warranty illegally. Threaten to take it up with trading standards or whoever else is responsible for business standards in your neck of the woods. Kick up a fuss, and there's a fair chance they'll fold. If they don't, then it's probably not worth the legal costs to chase it. Just let that inform your business decisions in future, and let the orginial company know that's why you're no longer purchasing from them.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  5. back to.. by pixitha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  6. Re:abuse? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. This compares low-yield vs. high-yield. by HaraldNH · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Please note that the Lexmark 12A1970 is a low-yield cartridge, that is it contains about half the amount of ink compared to the Xerox 8R7881 he is replacing.

    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.

  8. Re:Unfortunately by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Don't buy Lexmark by vandan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Unfortunately by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. It's not abuse by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Doesn't this scream DMCA violation? by DavidDeLux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  13. Expensive cartridges subsidise cheap printers, by glenalec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Speaking as an author... by Garwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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