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?
If cartridges were really overpriced, then a 3rd party would enter the market. That's capitalism 101.
An when a third party enters the market, they get sued under the DCMA. That's capitalism 102.
Unfortunately these kinds of abuses are prevalent throughout this industry, this specific one brings to mind the advert with for OfficeDepot, I think it is, where the guy reads out the cartridge numbers like it he is reading out lottery numbers.
It is annoying that standardisation has spread through the majority of hardware issues, but still remains stubborn when it comes to printer cartridges.
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
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"
I remember buying my Epson 880 thinking "I only print once in a while, it doesn't matter that the cartridges are $40 bucks a pop, I'll buy one a year tops". Boy did I feel dumb (and taken) when I found out the ink drys in about 3 months or so. It ticks me off I can't find a decent 24 pin dot matrix (not counting high end check printers) new anymore. Used just doesn't cut it, by the time I get ahold of 'em they've been run into the ground (usually the paper feed mechanism jams ever 4 pages or so). The printer market is probably the best example in history of the market working against consumers. Maybe some gov't regulation is called for. Europe did it I think. At least they should do something to keep all those printer cartridges out of land fills. It's ridiculous to needlessly waste resources so companies can sell more product.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Normally I found that Lexmark cartridges are insanely prices compared to the other brands which shows up furthermore in the price-per-page comparisons you often see.
:-?
Personally I've gone for the 4-cartridge Canon systems for inkjet and a HP 2200D Laser for the normal stuff (using refurbished toner cartridges - a mere $118 rather than $269 - complete with warranty).
This guy certainly proves that a little bit of searching around sure saves a LOT of money.
The whole printer-ink system reeks of things like the Debeers diamond cartel.
Now, I wonder how long this guy's WWW site will stay up
The lack of compatibility certainly gnaws at the engineers in us but it's hasty to assume that the cost to make them compatible would have been zero, especially when you take into account intangibles such as warranty, service, support, etc. Maybe it's just MuVo 2 (4GB compact flash)-type opportunism but the article doesn't bear that out on its own. More research is due before simply calling it "abuse".
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
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
So... I just checked an ink vendor and the lexmark cartridges they had (same model numbers from the story) were 2x as expensive as the Xerox ones. Nice to know that you're not locked in to the vendor, but beyond that - I think I'd find the Xerox cartridge a better buy. (The vendor was Laser Monks)
"Used just doesn't cut it, by the time I get ahold of 'em they've been run into the ground (usually the paper feed mechanism jams ever 4 pages or so). "
Take them apart and fix them. And yes I use to be a printer tech. Those printers were built like tanks.
As for the situation mentioned in the story. HP and Lexmark could be using different ink formulations. Not all inks are equal. I don't need to tell you how many printers I've seen in bad shape because someone used a third-party cartridge.
When for about the same price as that cart u get a refill kit that can do 10x the number for nothing, when it wears out your print head cause its bad ink, buy another printer and you've still saved thousands in ink costs.
Article from the Chicago Tribune (free reg needed): http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-02102 2ink,1,1030029.story
A cartridge conspiracy
By Phillip Robinson
Knight Ridder/Tribune
Published October 22, 2002
Ford and Chevron have partnered to design a new SUV. They claim it will run smoother and longer on a gallon of gas than any other SUV in the same class.
However, you'll have to use a special Chevron Premium gas that costs 30 percent to 70 percent more than typical gas. It's up around the $3- to
$4-a-gallon level. Use any other gas from any other station and a microchip in the tank will detect the difference and prevent the SUV from starting.
That protects you from poor performance and possible damage to the finely tuned engine. In fact, trying to use any other gas can sometimes void your warranty.
Relax. It isn't true. In cars, that is. (My apologies to Ford and Chevron.)
But it is true in computer printers.
Time to stop relaxing.
Some of the biggest inkjet printer makers are implanting chips in inkjet cartridges. These chips monitor the ink supply and let you know when you're getting low. They can even freeze the printer when the cartridge is empty. Supposedly that can permanently damage the printer.
So far, not so bad. Pretty much all cars have a fuel gauge, and all printers should, too. I loved when Lexmark added ink supply monitors to its software, so I could see how much was left. Few things are more annoying than getting halfway through a vital document only to run out of ink.
If and when you do find the cartridge, let's hope it isn't your first time buying replacement ink. First-timers are typically shocked at what they have to pay. That $100 inkjet printer may need three $35 cartridges to get back in a printing mood.
No wonder HP makes more profit on "consumables" such as ink than on anything else. No wonder Dell wants into the business. No wonder there's a busy
"recycling" and "remanufacturing" business in discount ink cartridges.
A growing number of companies refill used cartridges, and then sell them - often on the Internet - for 30 percent to 50 percent less. That saves you a lot of money and saves dumps from piles of dead cartridges.
But the remanufacturers won't be able to put a new chip in this latest cartridge design. Or be able to set the old chip back to recognizing "full."
Once that cartridge is empty, it's kaput. No recycling, no savings. The chip "squeals" on any attempt to reuse.
Some inkjet printer owners use their own refill kits to save even more money on ink. These kits are available even in some standard stores. They include a syringe, large bottles of ink and instructions. You fill the syringe and
then inject your cartridges. There's the danger of a mess, and of voiding the warranty, but there's also the prospect of saving 80 percent to 90
percent.
Smart chips in cartridges will also be able to terminate this savings. Once a cartridge is detected as empty, the chip can refuse to recognize it again as full.
It's called "lock in." Many tech companies are looking for ways to lock their customers in, to make it difficult or impossible for customers to
switch to using other suppliers in the future.
Of course, they don't advertise it that way. And many of their engineers and marketers may honestly not believe it that way.
They'll talk about the quality of the ink they make. How it's as much a part of the printing technology as the hardware and software. How you need all three working together to get the full performance. How they want to protect
you from bad prints, and the clogged inkjet tubes and broken printers that cheap ink can cause.
And you know, they're sometimes right. Cheap ink can make cheap-looking prints. No-name ink can clog those tiny jets in your printer.
But shouldn't you be the one to make the decision about which to use? Do you want the company "protecting" you ag
Xerox: Hello, Lexmark support line.
Caller: Yes I'd like to return my printer for new print heads but it has some... minor modifications.
Xerox: You put a viynl sticker on it?
Caller: Not exactly...
Xerox: You wrote the name of your company or business in large letters on the printer to discourage looting?
Caller: Not quite.....
Xerox: Then what?
Caller: I snapped off some plastic bits, by erm, accident.
Xerox: These wouldn't happen to be the print cartridge grabbing bits would they?
Caller: Why yes! They just so happen to be, coincidentally.
Xerox: No support for you! Call back, one year! (dialtone)
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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.
I don't think they do an Epson chip resetter, though. Mine cost $19 from some store somewhere and has reset everything it's come into contact with, no problem.
After a bit of researching I also picked up a canon (i550 model). How refreshing to see the ink cartridges are just that - not cartridges + printheads + drm chips.
The print quality is very good for the price (US $110 or so for the 550) and the inks are sold separately _for each color_ to save you money if one color runs out faster than the others. If you are really a cheap bastard you can use third party ink refilling kits without worry, but I've found the quality to be slightly better using the real canon inks.
Best part - a manufacturer original black ink cartridge costs $15 at normal retail. Try finding that for your lexmark or xerox or hp. There are third party knockoff cartridges even cheaper, but they may not print as well on e.g. glossy photo paper.
The i550 is slightly cheaper than the real "photo quality" ones that have special photo color inks in addition to the regular cmy ink. If you are a real photo quality nut you probably want one of those.
I would buy another one in a heartbeat. Screw all those greedy customer screwing "but look how cheap the printer is" bait and switch bastard manufacturers.
Lexmark, Ink. (pun intended) should be beaten with a rubber hose until they drool on the floor.
I have a old Canon BJ-200, that while the quality is not of Lexmark on its best day, I could plug it in right now and it will work - the carts never dry up. Ever. I am fully confident that the fossil record will show this.
I also have a old Panasonic KX-somthing or other that is noisy as hell but will print my obiturary, I'm sure. Which will most likely be soon, as I can't afford food after buying Lexmark supplies.
Anyhow, if Xerox and Lexmark are using similar carts, that is pretty much a big flag to avoid both companies like a strip bar named 'Fish n' Chips'.
Oh, you might be tempted, but there is something they're not telling you.
It seems it's defeating a security feature...
every lexmark printer i've had to work with (and believe its been a quite a few) has been a cheap piece of crap. Most inkjets are pretty cheesy too. And the scary thing is, you can get quality lasers (samsung ml-1710) for under $100 if you shop hard. No funky multi-meg drivers required either.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
He could probably also make som decent savings by cutting down on the exclamation marks!!!
Do we not all remember the stories about Lexmark and the DMCA ( ie Lexmark are sueing manufacturers of compatible toner under the DMCA ).
Lexmark products are also low quality and high priced. I'd prefer to buy from Xerox myself.
I found a rather nice solution to the cost of cartridges and "refil" kits. 3rd Party CIS systems.
My mother works for Head Start, and does a hideous ammount of printing. This of course adds up when you have to buy cartridges all the time, as we all know.
One day I heard about Continuous Ink Systems. We decided to give it a shot, 99$ for an Epson Photo 820 printer, and 180$ for the CIS kit, and we haven't looked back since.
It is a bit of a kludge to make the system work, but with a little care it will work, and work hard. As opposed to a contained cartridge, it's a tube fed 6 bottle setup. 4 oz. bottles of Ink provide hundreds and hundreds of prints. Full color.
We've certainly saved on cartridges this way, at the cost of some mild frustration from the kit. But in the end it does work.
Computational Madness in a round package.
I had one of these, and I thought it would be great, given that you just buy ink cartridges, instead of the whole head every time. I was also wrong---don't use it for a week and it starts to dry up. Take a 3 week vacation and the printer is shot--and there's no way to remove the ink head assembly or to clean it, so basically it was a wasted printer. I'm currently using a Lexmark X125 (multifunction fax-style printer) that uses the same cartridges which the article showed. About the same price for ink as the Epson C42UX, but I get a new print head everytime.
I have just left HP's employ, but they do not use the term printer much any more, they are ink delivery devices. It is vital that they get a big slice of the ink/toner market and they will do whatever is required to ensure they do, there very survival depends on it.
It's well illustrated with [many] photographs.
Translation: the site won't survive 5 minutes of slashdotting.
The shareholder is always right.
Printers are to Ink as Razors are to Razor Blades
...you can get a new Lexmark for about 30 Euro with (full!) back and color cartridges.
You print with it until the cartridges are empty.
Then you drive to Lexmark Germany and throw the now worthless printer without wasting any comments into their front garden and go and buy the next one.
Someday they'll learn and understand.
End of story.
They already tried to take the information down... ... they submitted the site to SlashDot ;)
I just bought an ink set and a chip resetter for Epson, and it works like a charm. A little googling goes a long way to find the right stuff.
While I was a student, I worked for a plastics company who made the Lexmark cartridges (in the UK). The amount of work to make sure the cartridges were of a good standard was rather surprising, with spot checks on yields every half hour using very fine measuring equipment and magnifying devices. The plastic that was used (I think it was called Noryl and was supplied by GE) seemed temprimental, with many cartridges being rejected. Add to that the fact I destroyed one of the moulding tools at a cost of 50,000 and you can see where the costs are. To have someone then come along and take the 'good' cartridges and fill them with their own ink without incurring those costs does, perhaps seem unfair.
However, if other companies are able to produce the cartridges (without infringing patents), where's the problem? And indeed, if it is the cost of the cartriage itself the companies are worried about, why don't THEY have a recylcling scheme? Clearly, the 3rd party vendors are making money from it...
I hope this post makes sense, I've just woken up...
insured for AIDS RAPE? [crazyninjas.org]
Oh my fucking god... I wonder how many times the dude who created that picture had to vomit till he was finished. THAT THING is really the MOST DISGUSTING I've ever seen.
A lot of people get this impression of capitalism as being TINA (there's no alternative). Capitalism is as good as gravitation, magnetism, chemical kinetics: it is a number of phenomena that obey social or physical laws, and the result can or cannot be good for society (depending also on the definition of what "good" is)
Simple capitalism theory, including the demonstration that perfect competition is the most efficient way to produce goods, rests on three pillars:
When some of these assumptions go bananas, so goes efficiency, and that's when your wallet starts aching.
It is maybe worth noting that all requirements are in open contradiction, since you can't have perfect knowledge of a infinite market, nor is everything packed in only one market - e.g. ordering from abroad will cost you an "access fee" in the form of mailing costs, that makes buying a 1% cheaper ice cream in Bucharest unattractive if you live in Miami. This simply means that capitalism is achievable only as an approximation, how good depends on the people who set the rules.
In the case of printer cartridges, 1 goes bananas because every producer is a near-monopolist of his printers; 2 goes bananas because few know that it is possible to hack printers to pay less; and 3 because every printer manufacturer has his cartridge market, sometimes more as their printers are normally not cross-compatible.
So, this is indeed Capitalism 101, but at the distortion of market chapter. What needs to be done is a state-imposed standard on printer cartridges, to reinstate competition and fair pricing. Start bullying your politicians today!
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
For Lasers I use the Samsung ML4500 because it is easy to refill its toner - a simple plug pops out and in goes the cheap toner. Also at around USD 100 for the whole laser gets you the first 2000 pages anyway.
For colour inkjets I've used Canon S200/250/300 models as they all have the (same part across many models) bladder-only style refills (no head - the head is a separate part). These are cheap (less than USD 15) for Canon-branded refills and even cheaper for generic brand. No refilling kits needed. If the head goes - I'd probably throw out the whole printer.
Time is money and I'm happy to refill a Laser toner (if its easy and this Samsung is but not all Lasers are) but all inkjets are so fiddly (from experience of refilling HP, Lexmark and Oki).
So don't complain about how expensive ink is or how hard it is to refill - look at the whole of life of your purchase including how expensive and how easy it is to refill.
Also at the school I always reject anyone trying to donate printers to us: this is one thing thats more a burden than a gift ! old monitors are fine !
.... to put the price of the ink per unit.
e.g. "The cost of the ink in this cartridge is xxxx US$ per liter" (or gallon or whatever applies).
Then it would hit the public the big scam that all this is.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I looked all over the web for the Xerox XK40c, AFAIK it has long been discontinued. None of the current Xerox multifunction color printers use inkjet, they're all color lasers now. No wonder the ink carts are so expensive, they're legacy supplies. Toner is cheaper.
As always there are two sides to this:
One is the fact that ink is too expensive, and manufacturers know that. Price of really cheap printers is intentionally as low as it can be, and by using proprietary ink cartridges, manufacturers are only protecting their investment. They sold you a cheap printer, and hope to get their money back on cartridges. It's not just the cartridges. Ever wondered why most of the printers are shipped without printer cable?
A printer cable can cost as much as $25 for a 3m cable, and yet the real price of the cable must be under $1 in bulk. Talking about profit...
The other side has it with print quality. Printer HAS to know, because of the way it's designed, what kind of ink is in the cartridge. Electronics has to be able to direct correct amount of ink at the right time. Replacement ink usually has different physical properties (boiling point, composition, amount of pigment), and the printer has no way of detecting what really got through to paper surface. So with different cartridges you will get different quality and even different colors on paper.
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.
My mother in law owns a Con S450, which started generating the error code (flashing orange/green) ...-o-o-o-o-o-o-g-... repeatedly.
... but it seems to me applicable to this topic.
Looking it up on the web, we found this (google cache) and this (google cache).
I'll let people make their own opinions, so that I don't accuse them
Anyhow, we don't have a fix, nor much expectation of getting one.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
All it takes is adding something to the ink that makes it a bit more viscous or a bit less, and then modifying the mechanism to cope.
I'm surprised the Big Inkjet Printer Manufacturers haven't already done so.
When I used a printer, I used a laser that someone had tossed out, which worked nicely.
Now, though, I just plain don't print anything. Everyone likes having things in electronic format, anyway. These days, most things handed to someone on paper just get entered into a computer.
May we never see th
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.
So tell me, replacing one cartridge every year or two, how long would it be before my injet cost more than the laser?
$500 - $50 == $450 difference
$450 / $60 == 7.5 cartridges
7.5 / 1 per year == 7.5 years.
I dunno about you, but I think that after 7 years, I'd like a new printer anyways.
Don't assume that because somebody's needs are not what yours are that they are stupid. I purchased a $150 injet and it has been well worth the money.
If they really wanted to, couldn't manufacturers embed a passive RFID tag inside the body of the cartridge to ensure "their" printer only uses "their" brand ink?
I think for that to happen, they would however need a way to make the cartridges non-refillable.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Back in the days when dot matrix was the only game in town, ribbons were exhorbitantly priced, with little "features" to ensure a revenue stream to the manufacturer. The first workaround was ribbon re-inkers. You could place a little block of felt near the ribbon intake and put a few drops of ink onto the felt every so often. Ultimately, generic knock-offs solved most of the problem.
Wow!!!! He sure was happy to get that hack to work!!! He must've shorted his hand across the transformer a couple of times!!!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
When I ponder the ink cartridge issue in my head I try to relate it to the auto industry. With manufacturers oursourcing their pars more and more, the chances of two products from competing products containing the same or very similar parts increases. On the one hand the manufacturer is trying to determine the value of manufacturing a component over its lifetime. On the other hand the consumer wants the parts as cheaply as they can get them. Either way the R&D and engineering that want into designing the component should be reimbursed. Same thing with drugs. Same thing with art.
But then again the gas and fuel filling recepticles on cars are universal. But in that case the engineers in one industry (automotive) were makeing their product compatible with a system designed by another industry (petroleum). Maybe a company should come along and supply really good ink at commodity prices. Maybe printer companies wouold then have an incentive to standardize. Of course they would also probably have to char 5X for the printer or just plain get out of the printer business.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I always thought that the lack of a printer cable was just a way to make the retailer happy. The retailer isn't making much of a profit on the printer, but cables are almost 100% profit. USB cables are ridiculously overpriced.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I had an upper end QMS departmental printer, about UDS 30000. One day a Ricoh salesman came through, and looked at my printer and started laughing. Turns out most of it the same hardware. Then, I accidentally found out that Digital was selling the same printer.
So I compared consumables prices, and the same toner cartridges, OPC kits, etc. were at wildly different prices. I bought my stuff from Digital and cut my monthly costs in half.
If you got a $100 bill, put your hands up...
They way printer manufacturers try to sell cheap printers only to then make money by selling the ink has gotten really ridiculous. Let me tell you an example: Somebody I know has a small PC shop in addition to his normal job. Some weeks ago, he got an offer from one of the sellers he gets his hardware from about a pretty cheap Lexmark printer (Z65pro IIRC, some color ink printer with integrated 10/100 print server). They offered the printer to him for about 60 Euros, including a "high capacity" color ink cartridge. Since this was pretty cheap, he ordered fifteen printers and then sold them to some of his customers who were looking for a cheap printer to go with their new computer. Some of them also wanted an additional ink cartridge, just in case. My colleague then looked what a new original Lexmark ink cartridge for this printer would cost - 70 Euros!
...
End result: he ended up buying ten additional PRINTERS, stripped them of the ink cartridge (which he then sold to his customers) and sold the printers, without ink cartridge, for a few Euros each on eBay. It was actually FAR CHEAPER to buy a WHOLE NEW PRINTER than to buy an additional ink cartridge.
Instead of buying ink - just throw the printer away and buy a new one
...and will keep doing so till it dies natural death. The only difference between "low-yield" and "high-yield" cartridges is that "low-yield" are sold half-empty anyway.
I actually like that fact that Xerox doesn't seem to ship the low-yield variant.
Spend $20 on low-yield, $30 on 3 "double" refill sets till cartridge dies. Cost: $50, print: 6.5 cartridgefuls of ink.
Spend $40 on high-yield, $30 on 3 "double" refill sets till cartridge dies. Cost: $70, print: 7 cartridgefuls of ink.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
After taking a lexmark inkjet out back and having an Office Space session with it I purchased the i550. It is hands down the only ink jet printer I've ever owned that I am satisfied with:
* Ink is inexpensive
* Cartridges can easily be refilled if you want to.
* No DRM, no false "your ink is low" messages
* It has never ever jammed on anything.
* It's very quiet compared to the HP, Lexmarks and Xeroxes I've owned in the past.
* It is built like a tank (especially compared to Lexmark which is built like a cereal box).
* it is $99 at Office Max/Depot/Whatever
-- $G
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
So, this is indeed Capitalism 101, but at the distortion of market chapter. What needs to be done is a state-imposed standard on printer cartridges, to reinstate competition and fair pricing. Start bullying your politicians today!
Look, I know to the average geek ink prices are a big deal. But in the grand scheme of things printer ink cost isn't that important. It is a luxury item, after all. We don't *need* to print color pictures after all to live.
If you call the government in on such a minor issue would risk a nanny state where we need the government's permission to do anything. The government needs to be aware of the important stuff--food, water, housing, etc. But printer ink? Come on. If it begins to be enough of a problem someone will come along and sell a $200 printer with guaranteed $10 ink carts.
Heck, I can see Dell selling a $100 printer for $10 ink carts just to screw over HP's most profitable business.
Brian Ellenberger
Thanks to this story the AdWords column is now displaying text ads for Xerox
Ironic, no?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
"No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name
Simply put, the warrantor can not void a warranty because of the use of an aftermarket part. Furthermore the warrantor must show that an aftermarket part caused the damage in question that they wish to void the warranty over. While this act was passed to protect automotive aftermarket part manufacturers I'm guessing it could be applied to this situation. Maybe someone with Westlaw access could check.
Check out "Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act" for some more information.
Of course getting a manufacturer to obey the law and not try to weasel out of their obligations is something completely different.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
I have Panasonic cordless phones -- two phones with one battery each, and one spare battery recharging in the base station. The Panasonic batteries were expensive and hard to find, but I found an identical, generic battery at Sears. The battery didn't fit -- until I removed an extraneous bit of plastic with a Dremmel tool. Works like a charm...
I really hate the fact that the cost of replacement carts can and often do exceed the cost of an inexpensive printer. I don't do a whole lot of printing anymore because of the excessive cost of these danged carts.
When you buy replacement part for a car, you have several choices. You can buy parts from the OEM, you can buy parts on the secondary market from after market manufacturers and you can buy parts from rebuilders. There are advantages and disadvadvantages to each. You know those advantages and purchase accordingly.
It used to be the same with replacement parts for printers but with the DCMA and other regulations, it is now more or less a thing of the past. It is wrong. The manufacturer is now able to say "One of the things that you do when you buy this printer from us is you enter into a relationship with us for as long as you own the printer." This is not what I expected. I wonder what's next - will they develop a printer that only works with the paper they make?
I've contemplated buying a printer and modifying it so that I can easily refill it using syringes filled with ink. But I understand that Lexmark, HP and others have started building in "smart chips" that kind of count the ink that the cart dispenses. These chips then simply shut down after a perscribed amount of time. I don't know how true this is but I think I'll try this with my $35 Lexmark just to see.
...to get modded +5, Informative, I simply have to make two factual statements, one of which is wrong, and the other monumentally obvious.
Fantastic
Perhaps I've come up with a good idea - OpenConsumables. Why do us users get together to try and encourage the manufacturers to be more open with the consumables and not lock us into purchasing only their brand consumables.
Let's be honest, no manufacturer forces you to stick their brand on paper into their equipment (so the free-market applies)... but when it comes to consumables they will, if they can, lock you in.
Yes, I know that a lot of mnufacturers sell their machines with hardly any margin and recoup all their profit from the consumables, but when the same consumable is sold by two different manufacturers at at 50% price differential, it does make you think.
Time to form the Free Consumables Foundation - with free as in choice
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.
I've got an HP Officejet D Series and have always wondered why black is printed with CMYK by default instead of pure black. Perhaps the manufacturers are trying to come up with the MOST INEFFICIENT way to consume your consumeables. =P
If you are ever in the situation where an empty non-black cartridge is preventing you from printing black text, look to see if there is a printer option that allows you to specify not only "greyscale" printing but "black only" printing. On my HP at least, this will create perfectly serviceable black text using only the black ink cartridge.
-ST
Interestingly, this is also true in the laser printer realm. I got sick of paying ~$35 every two months or so for an ink cartridge, so I started looking for a decent personal laser printer. I settled on the Lexmark e210 because it's fast, cheap, and uses USB. Though I don't have to replace the toner often, it's still expensive (about $70 a pop!) and I didn't feel like shouldering the expense. That's when I discovered that the Samsung ML1210 takes the EXACT SAME toner except for a minor difference. The Lexmark toner has tamper-proof screws; the Samsung doesn't. So, you make your slight modification to the printer, you buy one Samsung toner cartridge, and then dump toner in whenever you need more.
The reason your ink counter reset is because you removed the cartridge. Newer cartridges would not reset on their new line; they have a chip that meters ink usage. The reason they do this is quite simple; if you use the printer without ink it will ruin the head. Epson uses a micromechatronic head system consisting of a diamond attenuating in a pressurized chamber. If you run their ink system without ink "which acts as a cooling agent and a lubricant", you will fry the head and/or the quality will degrade considerably. The reason it refuses to print after the color is empty, even if you are just printing b&w is due to the fact it primes and cleans the heads before use, which uses both cartridges. If you do that without ink, you will hurt and/or fry the head. I've seen many of their old systems get fried because of this; fortunately their new system isn't as susceptible to this workaround of the protection system.
Interestingly enough, if you think that it might not yield the full cartridge with this metering system, you would be correct. I did several tests on all their printers available in the past two years and have noticed on every single one there is usually some ink left in the cartridge when it says it is empty. It is much worse on the C80/82/84's however. Those had quite a bit of ink left, enough so that when I reset the chip, it was able to print about 200 or more pages after it claimed it was empty. The 800/825/925, however, had enough for a few pages at best due to evaporative losses. If you want to play around with yield comparisons, this device is available in a few places which you can find on goodle.
I hope the "we should be able to use any cartridge in any printer" people do win the battle. And then when printer prices skyrocket back up to 10x what they are now we'll wonder what happened.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
And here we see the fallacy and why the 'tricks' people use to save on printing will never scale:
When the original cartridge was just too bad to recycle it it was time to finally buy a new one, but we were unable to find it in Rosario nor in Buenos Aires.
The original cartridge was unavailable because nobody is buying them. In a world where everybody refills, there won't be any cartridges to refill.
---
"Free as in Printer Cartriges"?
paintball
Why buy color printers?
If I want to print a digital photo, I can do so much better and cheaper at the nearest developer. Or I send it over the net, receiving the prints in the mail.
Sure, there are special applications (I wrote a medical planning system, and it had to print in color), but not that many.
If I just want to print, why would I buy an ink-jet? A liter of ink costs me about as much as a kilo of gold (US: 1 liter = 0.22 gallons, 1 kg = 2.2 pounds).
Instead, I bought a used laser printer. Neat paper tray, crisp 600 dpi, postscript with 48MB, network, serial and parallel port, very reliable, and it cost me about $150.
I don't print that much, and after two years I still haven't changed the toner.
*shrug*
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Obviously, the underlying technologies were very similar for these different OEM products. For purely marketing reasons, the products were made noncompatible. Engineers always resent this, but we need to realize that, like it or not, engineering is less a predictor of product success than marketing.
Disabling the keying features to allow your printer to use different ink cartridges is not very useful. You still must buy a new ink cartridge. Not much savings.
Refilling is theoretically a better way to save money, but it's problematic. Much as toner isn't just black dust, all inks are not created equal. Reliable inkjet printing is actually a surprisingly technical matter once you're past the consumer impression of "spray ink on a page" and you get down to the complex underlying chemistry and physics. The ink formulation is very important. I could go into tedious detail, but there probably isn't much general interest, and I do not want to take the chance of violating a nondisclosure agreement. Information that seems like common knowledge to an engineer is often considered a trade secret.
My conclusion is, you may or may not be able to drill and fill ink cartridges with some generic ink. The cheap ink refill kits are very likely to be a complete waste of time and money. The more expensive kits aren't really that much cheaper than the cartridges for the hassle involved, and they still may or may not work, and even when they work the print quality will suffer.
I've experimented with drilling and filling myself for my own very small scale use, with mixed results. You might reasonably expect to get one more use out of a filled cartridge on average, but the print quality will be worse because of unrecoverable clogged nozzles or burned out heaters. But keep in mind that I already knew a lot about the inner workings. YMMV.
A much better strategy to save money on ink cartridges is eBay. Don't buy the "remanufactured" cartridges. Those are just cartridges that someone else has drilled and filled, with about the same questionable results you could obtain for a lot less money. Instead, buy new cartridges in the manufacturer's sealed bags. They usually sell for less than half the price of online discount office supply stores. That makes them about the same price as the better refill kits, for a lot less hassle, and with a lot better print quality.
The fundamental issue here is, and always will be, marketing. It isn't just Lexmark. Our consumer habits force printer companies to sell printers at a loss and make up for this by inflating the price of supplies. The often used razor blade analogy is exactly correct. Companies are in business to make money. This is a good thing. You know the situation is screwed up when the price of an inkjet printer is consistently the same as the cost of the cartridges that ship with it. Of course, this does nothing to foster brand loyalty. When you can buy a printer with ink cartridges for the price of the replacement ink, that's what a lot of people do. Sadly, the printers go to the landfill as a monument to our consumption obsessed society. But I repeat, this problem is industry wide. It is not unique to Lexmark.
Low cost printing tips:
1) About half of Lexmark inkjets are Linux compatible. Check www.linuxprinting.org to see which work with Linux.
2) For volume printing, get a laser printer. Both color and mono lasers and toner are widely available on eBay. Printer prices start at about $40. Try to get a printer you can pick up locally, because shipping is usually $40-$80. All
When my old Lexmark Optra EP postscript 600dpi laser printer ran out of toner, I noticed that it cost approx. (CAD)$90 to buy a replacement. This is too expensive, when I can buy a used Lexmark Optra LX+ postscript 1200dpi laser with a higher resolution and a larger and full toner cartridge for only (CAD)$120, although the LX+ is a huge and noisy beast compared to my small EP.
:-)
Anyways, since I had 3 empty laser toner cartridges, which have removeable soft plastic stoppers to the toner reservor, I thought, why not refill them myself? After all, people with inkjets typically use refill kits, so why not just buy the laser toner powder. Well it took a while, but I managed to find a shop in Toronto that sold bottles of the black laser toner powder specific to my printer. (Different types of laser printers may have fusers, which melt toner, set at different temperature, so one has to make sure to get the toner powder that is proper for their printer.)
These bottles of laser toner powder come in a case of 10 for less than (CAD)$80, with each bottle containing 85g of black powder which will fill up a toner cartridge to the brim for less than (CAD)$8 each. Since it was raining outside, I took a funnel and refilled 3 of my empty cartridges in the bathtub in case of spills. And not only was it quick and easy, without any mess, my refilled cartridges print just like new. And since I bought the case of 10 bottles, I can print all I want for several years without worring about toner.
Alicia.
As I understand it, inkjet printers tend to be sold at cost and the companies are using the consumables as the source of their profit. I believe that when most consumers are faced with two feature identical printers - one "Proprietary Consumable" for $125 and another that is "Open Consumables" for $250 - most will see the price difference and go with the Proprietary one regardless that the total cost of ownership is much higher. IT professionals look at TCO, average consumers do not.
I only mention it because I'm in it :)