Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A caution on Canon printers

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 5:36:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.

When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
replaceable.

Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.

I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
(a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
wholesaler, at least in London.
(b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
much the price of the printer.

As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.

In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.

There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
which is clearly ridiculous.

I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
printer in the first place.

I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
foster this 'throw away' culture.

More about : caution canon printers

Anonymous
September 27, 2004 3:39:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Although I have no reason to doubt what you have written, I sincerely
hope your information is somehow inaccurate.

It was appearing that Canon was one of the only companies showing some
real leadership in getting away from the "throw away" printer which was
basically a box to sell ink out of. They have reasonably easy to refill
cartridges, which are also relatively cheap even as OEM, they have a
replaceable and user serviceable head, and they are rumored to be coming
out with a one picolitre dot printer which will allow for the removal of
the wasteful light cyan and magenta inks.

Ever since Canon reintroduced their inkjets with their completely
redesigned head, I have been worried about the possibility of head
failure and either difficulty in locating them, or of, the head price
being inflated to make the printer cheaper to replace than repair.

Like yourself, I find the idea of tossing out an otherwise fully
functional printer abhorrent, wasteful, and environmentally unacceptable
and I do hope Canon is not falling into the same business model that
every other printer manufacturer seems to have followed.

I was just beginning to appreciate Canon for what appeared to be high
ethical standards in this market.

If anyone can offer contrary information to that which Andrew has
ascertained about head replacement on current Canon printers, I would
like to hear about it.

Art


Andrew Mayo wrote:

> I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>
> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> replaceable.
>
> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>
> I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
> (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
> wholesaler, at least in London.
> (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
> much the price of the printer.
>
> As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
> as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>
> In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
> perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
> contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
> manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
> end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>
> There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
> in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
> the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
> course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
> rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
> which is clearly ridiculous.
>
> I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
> than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
> intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
> certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
> component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
> page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
> pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
> would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
> printer in the first place.
>
> I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
> regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
> makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
> the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
> gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
> the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
> foster this 'throw away' culture.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 9:41:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand sum
of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really worried
about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of Canon printers
is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would have been about $90.
They are not easily available as the OP stated, whichever country you are
in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset by the cartridges which are
so cheap.

The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a
little slow for me nowadays!

Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired' units!
--
Cari (MS-MVP Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:i_S5d.120859$KU5.81567@edtnps89...
> Although I have no reason to doubt what you have written, I sincerely hope
> your information is somehow inaccurate.
>
> It was appearing that Canon was one of the only companies showing some
> real leadership in getting away from the "throw away" printer which was
> basically a box to sell ink out of. They have reasonably easy to refill
> cartridges, which are also relatively cheap even as OEM, they have a
> replaceable and user serviceable head, and they are rumored to be coming
> out with a one picolitre dot printer which will allow for the removal of
> the wasteful light cyan and magenta inks.
>
> Ever since Canon reintroduced their inkjets with their completely
> redesigned head, I have been worried about the possibility of head failure
> and either difficulty in locating them, or of, the head price being
> inflated to make the printer cheaper to replace than repair.
>
> Like yourself, I find the idea of tossing out an otherwise fully
> functional printer abhorrent, wasteful, and environmentally unacceptable
> and I do hope Canon is not falling into the same business model that every
> other printer manufacturer seems to have followed.
>
> I was just beginning to appreciate Canon for what appeared to be high
> ethical standards in this market.
>
> If anyone can offer contrary information to that which Andrew has
> ascertained about head replacement on current Canon printers, I would like
> to hear about it.
>
> Art
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:19:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...

> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> replaceable.

I'm curious if it was Canon itself who told you the price of the printhead
or if it was a salesdroid in a store that sells Canon printers that
told you the price of the replacement head.

I'd ask whomever (specific person) gave you the information to
sell you the 50USD replacement head. :-)

Mike
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand
> sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really
> worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of
> Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would
> have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated,
> whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset
> by the cartridges which are so cheap.
>
> The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
> S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
> There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a
> little slow for me nowadays!
>
> Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired'
> units!
> --

Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This enables
owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to receive a
discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also shipped (free) to
your door.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 11:11:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com...
>I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>
> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> replaceable.
>
> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>
> I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
> (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
> wholesaler, at least in London.
> (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
> much the price of the printer.
>
> As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
> as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>
> In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
> perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
> contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
> manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
> end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>
> There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
> in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
> the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
> course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
> rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
> which is clearly ridiculous.
>
> I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
> than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
> intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
> certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
> component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
> page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
> pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
> would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
> printer in the first place.
>
> I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
> regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
> makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
> the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
> gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
> the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
> foster this 'throw away' culture.

First I am not sure who quoted the printhead life to you, but I'd say they
were off. I currently own 3 Canon printers and have had 4 others in the
past. All have lasted 3 or more years and seen moderate to heavy use (6 kids
in the house) and never a printhead issue. In fact, I have only had problems
twice in nearly 8 years and both times had a replacement at my door the next
day.
As for cost of the replacement printhead, the original quote was actually a
little conservative, but not by much. The current price you were quoted I
would agree is way out of line and is about twice the actual cost (here in
the states at least). They are only available here from Canon Parts or a
service center and the service center can tack on what ever they want for
the cost of an out of warranty part. Even at the $60 cost though this could
be a good reason to go for Canon's Extended Service Plan. Unlike other
manufactures, they actually cover the printhead under their warranty and the
two year extension continues this coverage. So for about $50 you get 3 years
of coverage and basically have to worry about nothing but ink!

Recently upgraded under their Customer Loyalty Program to move up from an
old printer that was finally starting to give out on me after nearly 4
years. With the discount they offered under the plan and a extended service
plan, cost is still much less than originally paid for the old printer, got
a better printer and shipped right to my door for free.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 11:49:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com...
> I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>
> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> replaceable.
>
> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>
> I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
> (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
> wholesaler, at least in London.
> (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
> much the price of the printer.
>
> As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
> as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>
> In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
> perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
> contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
> manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
> end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>
> There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
> in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
> the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
> course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
> rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
> which is clearly ridiculous.
>
> I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
> than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
> intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
> certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
> component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
> page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
> pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
> would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
> printer in the first place.
>
> I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
> regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
> makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
> the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
> gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
> the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
> foster this 'throw away' culture.

Agree with all you say, Andrew, except the bit about buying an Epson.
(Phrases like "shooting self in foot" come to mind).

I'm in the same situation with my S520 showing first signs of head problems,
have found just
http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_Printhead...
for £77 which is indeed a silly price.

Maybe they are very expensive because they don't sell many because ...oh
well.

The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than covered
what I used to spend on film and photographic prints - wonder how long a
Pixma IP4000 would last?

Laurence
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 11:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Laurence Wilmer" <l.d.wilmer@nojunkmailbluyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B9_5d.193$TP4.7@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com...
>> I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
>> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
>> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>>
>> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
>> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
>> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
>> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
>> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
>> replaceable.
>>
>> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>>
>> I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
>> (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
>> wholesaler, at least in London.
>> (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
>> much the price of the printer.
>>
>> As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
>> as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>>
>> In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
>> perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
>> contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
>> manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
>> end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>>
>> There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
>> in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
>> the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
>> course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
>> rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
>> which is clearly ridiculous.
>>
>> I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
>> than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
>> intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
>> certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
>> component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
>> page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
>> pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
>> would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
>> printer in the first place.
>>
>> I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
>> regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
>> makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
>> the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
>> gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
>> the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
>> foster this 'throw away' culture.
>
> Agree with all you say, Andrew, except the bit about buying an Epson.
> (Phrases like "shooting self in foot" come to mind).
>
> I'm in the same situation with my S520 showing first signs of head
> problems,
> have found just
> http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_Printhead...
> for £77 which is indeed a silly price.
>
> Maybe they are very expensive because they don't sell many because ...oh
> well.
>
> The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than
> covered
> what I used to spend on film and photographic prints - wonder how long a
> Pixma IP4000 would last?
>

I just got the iP4000 and love it.
Had an old S520 (4 years old) that started grinding about 1 in 10 times I
would use it after kids yanked a paper jam out of it.
After calling to see if cost effective to get repaired Canon offered me 10%
off the iP4000 and shipped it next day to my door free of charge. Not a bad
printer for $137 !!
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 5:40:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

PC Medic wrote:

> "Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
> news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand
>>sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really
>>worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of
>>Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would
>>have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated,
>>whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset
>>by the cartridges which are so cheap.
>>
>>The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
>>S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
>>There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a
>>little slow for me nowadays!
>>
>>Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired'
>>units!
>>--
>
>
> Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This enables
> owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to receive a
> discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also shipped (free) to
> your door.
>

Do they also pay to ship the OLD printer back to them? If printer
companies are going to obsolesce their product by making replacement
parts impossible to come by or horribly overpriced, then they should be
stuck with the old hulk of a printer than has no use to the end user any
longer.

Art


>
>
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:41:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:6i36d.166272$XP3.164851@edtnps84...
>
>
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>> "Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
>> news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand
>>>sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really
>>>worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of
>>>Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would
>>>have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated,
>>>whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is
>>>offset by the cartridges which are so cheap.
>>>
>>>The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
>>>S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
>>>There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's
>>>a little slow for me nowadays!
>>>
>>>Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired'
>>>units!
>>>--
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This
>> enables owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to
>> receive a discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also
>> shipped (free) to your door.
>>
>
> Do they also pay to ship the OLD printer back to them? If printer
> companies are going to obsolesce their product by making replacement parts
> impossible to come by or horribly overpriced, then they should be stuck
> with the old hulk of a printer than has no use to the end user any longer.
>

The built in obsolescence would be your opinion based on the experience that
your prematurely failed. I hardly find this to be the case in the many I
have owned.
They in fact do have a recycle program, but you pay shipping (about $13 I
think I have seen).
I mean come on, do auto, appliance or any other manufacture pay to ship the
old product back to them? I think not!
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 2:38:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com...
> I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.

<snip>

I agree. The QY6-0043 print head for my Canon i950 was $92.21 US plus
tax/shipping. Thats more than a lot of new printers.
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 4:33:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article PC Medic says...
> Unlike other
> manufactures, they actually cover the printhead under their warranty
>
Canon are very generous in the US market. In other areas the printhead
is regarded as a consumable like ink.
September 28, 2004 7:00:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Laurence Wilmer" <l.d.wilmer@nojunkmailbluyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:B9_5d.193$TP4.7@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than
> covered what I used to spend on film and photographic prints -
> wonder how long a Pixma IP4000 would last?

Laurence

I'll let you know in time. Except for an HP, all have lasted in excess of 5
years, the Brother DeskJet even managed 8. Hope that this one follows the
path.

Eugene
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 6:37:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:41:22 -0400, "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote:


>The built in obsolescence would be your opinion based on the experience that
>your prematurely failed. I hardly find this to be the case in the many I
>have owned.
>They in fact do have a recycle program, but you pay shipping (about $13 I
>think I have seen).
>I mean come on, do auto, appliance or any other manufacture pay to ship the
>old product back to them? I think not!
>
Pretty soon, in the EU, yes, they will have to. Appliances are
already affected, and autos have a deadline of, IIRC, 2010. Computer
products are in there too, though I can't remember their cut-off date.

People over here are fed up with the amount of manufacturing detritus
ending up in dumps.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 8:49:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...

It's beginning to look like a large number of Canon 'S' series owners
have had printheads fail at about the 5,000 page mark.

I cannot locate the original specifications where I remember reading
this figure - I sure wish I could, and Canon's published specs are
notably silent about expected head life.

As another poster commented, the EU is going to require manufacturers
to manage disposal of their products. Even old inkjet printers are
useful to someone; for example, third world countries would be very
grateful for these printers - they would be happy to refill cartridges
themselves.

It is high time consumers started holding companies responsible for
their 'planned obsolescence' strategies. The car industry, for
instance, is much more responsible in this area. Sure, spare parts are
sometimes more expensive than we'd like but they are generally
available and 'third party' components like wiper blades are easily
substituted for manufacturer's original components.

Some manufacturers are more responsible than others, of course. In
this regard I'd like to single out the Japanese company Teac. About 10
years ago I still owned an old Teac reel-to-reel 4 track tape deck. It
must have been nearly 20 years old and I bought it second-hand.

The capstan roller and one VU meter lamp required replacement. Teac
still stocked parts for the machine, and replacements totalled the
magnificent sum of around USD5 (!!).

Another manufacturer with a good track record is the musical
instrument manufacturer Roland. I would also single out IBM for an
excellent track record in supplying service manuals (online!) and
spare parts (unfortunately, Lexmark printers don't seem to be
included).

If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
and already illegal in the EU.

It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
running out of them.

I intend to write directly to the Japanese CEO of Canon about this
issue. Unfortunately, my Japanese is non-existent, so I will have to
write the letter in English. I suspect it would carry a lot more
weight in Japanese. In particular, I can quite legitimately point out
that I have lost considerable face recommending these printers to my
friends and colleagues, only to find now that they are condemned to a
premature burial due to Canon's questionable business practices.

In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
Canon without being unreasonable to them.

In the meantime, I can only reiterate caution over the purchase of
Canon's consumer products, if they entail the purchase of end-user
replaceable consumables. This would especially apply to laser
printers, for example.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 10:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The printhead QY6-0043 is regarded as a Canon part (not a consumable)
in the UK. It can be purchased from authorised canon parts resellers
which can be difficult to find. Cheapest I have found is from a
company called 'Interface Solutions International' in the UK. I have
bought quite a few of them for £40+VAT each + delivery & credit card
charge.

I buy quite a few products from Canon direct but they cannot sell me
any of the printheads for the newer printers. i.e. QY6=XXXX range. I
agree that it is a rip off. I can buy a Canon OEM 'BC-33e' for nearly
half the price of a QY6-0043 & that includes a full set of ink ! Where
is the logic in these crazy prices for the QY6=XXXX printheads when we
can buy a new canon IP3000 for around £69.00+VAT

ah
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:23:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

PC Medic wrote:

Art Entlich wrote:
>>
>>Do they also pay to ship the OLD printer back to them? If printer
>>companies are going to obsolesce their product by making replacement parts
>>impossible to come by or horribly overpriced, then they should be stuck
>>with the old hulk of a printer than has no use to the end user any longer.
>>
>
>
> The built in obsolescence would be your opinion based on the experience that
> your prematurely failed. I hardly find this to be the case in the many I
> have owned.
> They in fact do have a recycle program, but you pay shipping (about $13 I
> think I have seen).
> I mean come on, do auto, appliance or any other manufacture pay to ship the
> old product back to them? I think not!
>
>
>

Just to clarify, I wasn't the person who had the printer fail, I was,
however, the person commenting on the short life span of printers.

I still have a 1974 car on the road. Although parts are becoming hard to
come by, they mainly still exist and it is 30 years old. I consider a 4
year old printer that is otherwise is good shape forced into
obsolescence when a part (the head) is nearly as costly as a replacement
printer. There are very few parts I can think of on a car which cost as
much as a new car. Further, cars are recyclable relatively locally in
most places.

The answer really isn't recycling a perfectly good printer, anyway, but
to make parts reasonably priced so one can continue to repair and use
it. Considering this is a user serviceable part, which require little
technical skill to replace, it seems particularly poor that the part
would be so overpriced. I suspect it bears no relationship to
manufacturing costs.

Art
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 2:24:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

At least here in the USA, they give a full 1 year replacement on the
printhead or entire printer. After that, if you've signed up and payed
a minimal price for the 3 year extended warranty, the printer and
printhead will be covered for that entire period. That said, yes, I've
even bought a Canon that had to be exchanged twice (they paid for
everything, including shipping back and forth), but no cost here to me
to get a working one that has been running fine.

Otherwise, here in the USA, add to the junk pile and buy any <$40 inkjet
printer, and when the cartridges run dry, buy another new printer for
the set of black & color cartridges that cost the same as that new printer.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 4:05:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...

> If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
> see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
> matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
> reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
> to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
> Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
> Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
> and already illegal in the EU.

Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
you'd be willing to do so. :-) :-)

But it's well known that consumer printers are sold for no profit
or at even a loss. The printers are also are sold/distributed
in large volumes while replacement heads (likely by far the most
expensive piece in the printer) would be sold in very low volumes.
They make it up in consumables. Any company that doesn't do so
won't sell any printers no matter how good the printer is (ask ALPS
about their Dye-sub printers that when they came out blew all other
inkjets to pieces despite runtime cost being about the same as inkjets).

> It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
> all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
> reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
> inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
> landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
> running out of them.

You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
model to compete?


> In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
> printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
> like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
> reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
> Canon without being unreasonable to them.

I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
for Mercedes cars.


Mike

P.S. - Keep in mind there are costs other than parts cost when
doing business. A service-oriented company can easily go
bankrupt even though their "parts cost" is zero and all
revenue they get being "profit".
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 7:08:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 29 Sep 2004 04:49:39 -0700, Andrew Mayo wrote:
> It's beginning to look like a large nvmber of Canon 'S' series owners
> have had printheads fail at abovt the 5,000 page mark.

> As another poster commented, the EU is going to reqvire manvfactvrers
> to manage disposal of their prodvcts. Even old inkjet printers are
> vsefvl to someone; for example, third world covntries wovld be very
> gratefvl for these printers - they wovld be happy to refill cartridges
> themselves.

What's the vse of a refilled cartridge and a malfvnction printhead to
any third world vser?

Wovld he get a spare printhead cheaper than anyone else?

> It is high time consvmers started holding companies responsible for
> their 'planned obsolescence' strategies. The car indvstry, for
> instance, is mvch more responsible in this area. Svre, spare parts are
> sometimes more expensive than we'd like bvt they are generally
> available and 'third party' components like wiper blades are easily
> svbstitvted for manvfactvrer's original components.

Neither disposal nor refvrbishing will do mvch help here.

What's actvally reqvired is more a 'weakening' of patents: Other
manvfactvreres wovld have to be allowed to bvild spare parts or refill
components. There's a certain permission granted already, while there
are some ridicvlovs patents on e.g. a T-shaped plastic edge within a
cartridge - and I feel there's always something that the original
manvfactvrer can do in order to prevent refills if he actvally wants to
do so (Canon covld be named as a cartridge exception, compared to
Epson/Lexmark and probably hp).

However, profit is not made by the original device (see inkjet or lazor
printers, razor blades or petrol lamps), bvt by the replacement parts.


To my knowledge there are some covntries that have laws to permit
rebvilding certain parts here in Germany / Evropean Union. I don't know
the details. Cvrrently, we don't have patents on software yet, while the
major players try to get this changed. Patents on hardware are valid,
while there maybe this exception for spare parts.

How abovt US? I still wonder why Canon offers the crippled
non-CD/DVD-printing modes for the US market, while it may print on CDs
everywhere else (e.g. i860 vs. i865 or newer Pixma printers which can do
CD printing ovtside the US). Mvst be some legal/licence thing as well...

> In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
> printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
> like arovnd USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
> reasonable and fair. I also svspect it represents a decent profit for
> Canon withovt being vnreasonable to them.

Bvt who decides what a reasonable price is? There may be good reasons
that providing a single printhead covld reqvire mvch higher stocking
costs than for a printer or cartridge.

> In the meantime, I can only reiterate cavtion over the pvrchase of
> Canon's consvmer prodvcts, if they entail the pvrchase of end-vser
> replaceable consvmables. This wovld especially apply to laser
> printers, for example.

Personally, I feel that every inkjet and laser printer company is as
worse - or to my knowledge even worse. Thvs I'd do the opposit and
recommend Canon the best, compared to the others.

Regards
Martin
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 6:46:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 29 Sep 2004 15:08:57 GMT, Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On 29 Sep 2004 04:49:39 -0700, Andrew Mayo wrote:
>> It's beginning to look like a large number of Canon 'S' series owners
>> have had printheads fail at about the 5,000 page mark.
>
>> As another poster commented, the EU is going to require manufacturers
>> to manage disposal of their products. Even old inkjet printers are
>> useful to someone; for example, third world countries would be very
>> grateful for these printers - they would be happy to refill cartridges
>> themselves.
>
>What's the use of a refilled cartridge and a malfunction printhead to
>any third world user?
>
>Would he get a spare printhead cheaper than anyone else?

In the UK at least, there are a number of organisations accepting old
printers that are either obsolete or repairable. They will even take
printers that have specific problems and then cannibalise them to
repair others, then ship them to say, Africa, for use in schools. So,
yes, even one with a malfunctioning printhead may be useful.
--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 3:18:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

To fvrther add to the miserable bvsiness model which has been adopted by
pretty mvch ALL printer companies, and particvlarly the inkjet
manvfactvrers, Epson recent annovnced in the US that they had associated
with a company called "FvndFactory". FvndFactory pay credits or cash to
schools for collected inkjet and toner cartridges, which I assvme they
then either sell to refillers, or refill and sell themselves, throvgh
perhaps another division of the company.

They accept Canon, HP, Lexmark and other brands of cartridges, bvt vntil
this agreement did not accept Epson's.

Well, now they do. Sovnds good, eh?

However, if one goes back to September 14 of this year one will find
Epson had a press release in which they annovnced this new relationship
with FvndFactory. They claim that throvgh FvndFactory the cartridges
will be recycled. However, the manner of recycling is rather
"creative". Epson has avthorized the cartridges to be incinerated in an
"environmentally friendly" manner by a company which will generate
"energy" from them. In other words, they are having them bvrned.

Where I come from this practice is called "greenwashing". It gives the
impression a company is being environmentally friendly and concerned,
when they jvst want to "get rid" of the waste they are responsible for
creating.

The benefit to Epson is that they can make it look like they are
handling the problem of their non-refillable design (they inclvde their
tri-color cartridges in this grovp) while they have the cartridges taken
ovt of circvlation so the refillers can't get hold of them and vndercvt
Epson's sales of ink cartridges.

Fvrther, the natvre of the cartridges is svch that they contain ink,
dyes or pigments which probably are metal salts, some possibly
containing heavy metals, plastic, adhesives, resins, and even a small
circvit board, epoxy and chip and these are svpposed to be bvrned in a
manner that there is no impact on the air qvality.

Finally, FvndFactory limits each shipment of cartridges to them to have
no more than 100 Epson cartridges, and they only offer .5 points per
cartridge, which is worth anywhere between abovt 5 and 35 cents,
depending on what the school trades the cartridges in for.

I've written both Epson and FvndFactory protesting this type of
greenwashing, and I am awaiting a reply.

I svggest we start pressvring ovr legislators to respond to this and
reqvire stronger laws to control this type of abvse. If manvfactvrers
don't want to play fairly, then perhaps some stiff taxes on these
prodvcts that price them ovt of the market might get the companies a bit
more concerned abovt designing these printers and cartridges so they are
trvly more environmentally friendly.

Art

Martin Travtmann wrote:

> On 29 Sep 2004 04:49:39 -0700, Andrew Mayo wrote:
>
>> It's beginning to look like a large nvmber of Canon 'S' series owners
>> have had printheads fail at abovt the 5,000 page mark.
>
>
>
>> As another poster commented, the EU is going to reqvire manvfactvrers
>> to manage disposal of their prodvcts. Even old inkjet printers are
>> vsefvl to someone; for example, third world covntries wovld be very
>> gratefvl for these printers - they wovld be happy to refill cartridges
>> themselves.
>
>
> What's the vse of a refilled cartridge and a malfvnction printhead to
> any third world vser?
>
> Wovld he get a spare printhead cheaper than anyone else?
>
>
>> It is high time consvmers started holding companies responsible for
>> their 'planned obsolescence' strategies. The car indvstry, for
>> instance, is mvch more responsible in this area. Svre, spare parts are
>> sometimes more expensive than we'd like bvt they are generally
>> available and 'third party' components like wiper blades are easily
>> svbstitvted for manvfactvrer's original components.
>
>
> Neither disposal nor refvrbishing will do mvch help here.
>
> What's actvally reqvired is more a 'weakening' of patents: Other
> manvfactvreres wovld have to be allowed to bvild spare parts or refill
> components. There's a certain permission granted already, while there
> are some ridicvlovs patents on e.g. a T-shaped plastic edge within a
> cartridge - and I feel there's always something that the original
> manvfactvrer can do in order to prevent refills if he actvally wants to
> do so (Canon covld be named as a cartridge exception, compared to
> Epson/Lexmark and probably hp).
>
> However, profit is not made by the original device (see inkjet or lazor
> printers, razor blades or petrol lamps), bvt by the replacement parts.
>
>
> To my knowledge there are some covntries that have laws to permit
> rebvilding certain parts here in Germany / Evropean Union. I don't know
> the details. Cvrrently, we don't have patents on software yet, while the
> major players try to get this changed. Patents on hardware are valid,
> while there maybe this exception for spare parts.
>
> How abovt US? I still wonder why Canon offers the crippled
> non-CD/DVD-printing modes for the US market, while it may print on CDs
> everywhere else (e.g. i860 vs. i865 or newer Pixma printers which can do
> CD printing ovtside the US). Mvst be some legal/licence thing as well...
>
>
>> In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
>> printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
>> like arovnd USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
>> reasonable and fair. I also svspect it represents a decent profit for
>> Canon withovt being vnreasonable to them.
>
>
> Bvt who decides what a reasonable price is? There may be good reasons
> that providing a single printhead covld reqvire mvch higher stocking
> costs than for a printer or cartridge.
>
>
>> In the meantime, I can only reiterate cavtion over the pvrchase of
>> Canon's consvmer prodvcts, if they entail the pvrchase of end-vser
>> replaceable consvmables. This wovld especially apply to laser
>> printers, for example.
>
>
> Personally, I feel that every inkjet and laser printer company is as
> worse - or to my knowledge even worse. Thvs I'd do the opposit and
> recommend Canon the best, compared to the others.
>
> Regards
> Martin
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 3:42:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anoni Moose wrote:

> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
>>see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
>>matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
>>reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
>>to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
>>Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
>>Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
>>and already illegal in the EU.
>
>
> Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
> You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
> you'd be willing to do so. :-) :-)

Very cute... The Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts in the US makes it
illegal for a company to tie consumables to a product sale. For some
odd reason, no one has acted upon this to deal with printer companies
yet. I think it is just a matter of time...

>
> But it's well known that consumer printers are sold for no profit
> or at even a loss. The printers are also are sold/distributed
> in large volumes while replacement heads (likely by far the most
> expensive piece in the printer) would be sold in very low volumes.
> They make it up in consumables. Any company that doesn't do so
> won't sell any printers no matter how good the printer is (ask ALPS
> about their Dye-sub printers that when they came out blew all other
> inkjets to pieces despite runtime cost being about the same as inkjets).
>
>

What killed the ALPS printers were problems with banding, and other
output quality issues, unavailability of their consumable ribbons, the
need for special and limited type of paper, cost per print, and customer
service problems.


>>It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
>>all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
>>reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
>>inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
>>landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
>>running out of them.
>
>
> You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
> technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
> don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
> if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
> they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
> model to compete?
>
>

That's hardly what he's saying, that's what you wish to hear. Most
advances in the last 5-7 years in inkjet technology have been:

1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
generation

Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
manuals and special tools.
>
>>In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
>>printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
>>like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
>>reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
>>Canon without being unreasonable to them.
>
>
> I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
> their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
> the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
> for Mercedes cars.

He's speaking about a replacement part and it's value relative to the
whole product. Everyone knows Rolls Royce is an overpriced car. You
pay for the name and possibly, the service. They break down just like
other brands, maybe even moreso. I think you'd be just a bit annoyed if
every car company charged the same price Rolls did, or if a new engine
for a car cost as much as the whole car did (before the cost of the
servicing even was added in).

Art

>
>
> Mike
>
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 10:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nYR6d.6806$Du2.2934@edtnps89...
> To further add to the miserable business model which has been adopted by
> pretty much ALL printer companies, and particularly the inkjet
> manufacturers, Epson recent announced in the US that they had associated
> with a company called "FundFactory". FundFactory pay credits or cash to
> schools for collected inkjet and toner cartridges, which I assume they
> then either sell to refillers, or refill and sell themselves, through
> perhaps another division of the company.
>
> They accept Canon, HP, Lexmark and other brands of cartridges, but until
> this agreement did not accept Epson's.
>
> Well, now they do. Sounds good, eh?
>
> However, if one goes back to September 14 of this year one will find Epson
> had a press release in which they announced this new relationship with
> FundFactory. They claim that through FundFactory the cartridges will be
> recycled. However, the manner of recycling is rather "creative". Epson
> has authorized the cartridges to be incinerated in an "environmentally
> friendly" manner by a company which will generate "energy" from them. In
> other words, they are having them burned.
>
> Where I come from this practice is called "greenwashing". It gives the
> impression a company is being environmentally friendly and concerned, when
> they just want to "get rid" of the waste they are responsible for
> creating.
>
> The benefit to Epson is that they can make it look like they are handling
> the problem of their non-refillable design (they include their tri-color
> cartridges in this group) while they have the cartridges taken out of
> circulation so the refillers can't get hold of them and undercut Epson's
> sales of ink cartridges.
>
> Further, the nature of the cartridges is such that they contain ink, dyes
> or pigments which probably are metal salts, some possibly containing heavy
> metals, plastic, adhesives, resins, and even a small circuit board, epoxy
> and chip and these are supposed to be burned in a manner that there is no
> impact on the air quality.
>
> Finally, FundFactory limits each shipment of cartridges to them to have no
> more than 100 Epson cartridges, and they only offer .5 points per
> cartridge, which is worth anywhere between about 5 and 35 cents, depending
> on what the school trades the cartridges in for.
>
> I've written both Epson and FundFactory protesting this type of
> greenwashing, and I am awaiting a reply.
>
> I suggest we start pressuring our legislators to respond to this and
> require stronger laws to control this type of abuse. If manufacturers
> don't want to play fairly, then perhaps some stiff taxes on these products
> that price them out of the market might get the companies a bit more
> concerned about designing these printers and cartridges so they are truly
> more environmentally friendly.
>

First let me say that I am no fan of Epson.

However, what ever name you want to give it, if they are able to dispose of
them in an 'environmentally sound' manner then so be it.
Only a very small percentage of printer users actually refill, so without
this program these cartridges would end up in the landfill.
Your message seems to indicate you are more upset that you (or your company)
can not use them as refills than it does a concern about the environment.
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 12:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

PC Medic wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:nYR6d.6806$Du2.2934@edtnps89...
>
>>To further add to the miserable business model which has been adopted by
>>pretty much ALL printer companies, and particularly the inkjet
>>manufacturers, Epson recent announced in the US that they had associated
>>with a company called "FundFactory". FundFactory pay credits or cash to
>>schools for collected inkjet and toner cartridges, which I assume they
>>then either sell to refillers, or refill and sell themselves, through
>>perhaps another division of the company.
>>
>>They accept Canon, HP, Lexmark and other brands of cartridges, but until
>>this agreement did not accept Epson's.
>>
>>Well, now they do. Sounds good, eh?
>>
>>However, if one goes back to September 14 of this year one will find Epson
>>had a press release in which they announced this new relationship with
>>FundFactory. They claim that through FundFactory the cartridges will be
>>recycled. However, the manner of recycling is rather "creative". Epson
>>has authorized the cartridges to be incinerated in an "environmentally
>>friendly" manner by a company which will generate "energy" from them. In
>>other words, they are having them burned.
>>
>>Where I come from this practice is called "greenwashing". It gives the
>>impression a company is being environmentally friendly and concerned, when
>>they just want to "get rid" of the waste they are responsible for
>>creating.
>>
>>The benefit to Epson is that they can make it look like they are handling
>>the problem of their non-refillable design (they include their tri-color
>>cartridges in this group) while they have the cartridges taken out of
>>circulation so the refillers can't get hold of them and undercut Epson's
>>sales of ink cartridges.
>>
>>Further, the nature of the cartridges is such that they contain ink, dyes
>>or pigments which probably are metal salts, some possibly containing heavy
>>metals, plastic, adhesives, resins, and even a small circuit board, epoxy
>>and chip and these are supposed to be burned in a manner that there is no
>>impact on the air quality.
>>
>>Finally, FundFactory limits each shipment of cartridges to them to have no
>>more than 100 Epson cartridges, and they only offer .5 points per
>>cartridge, which is worth anywhere between about 5 and 35 cents, depending
>>on what the school trades the cartridges in for.
>>
>>I've written both Epson and FundFactory protesting this type of
>>greenwashing, and I am awaiting a reply.
>>
>>I suggest we start pressuring our legislators to respond to this and
>>require stronger laws to control this type of abuse. If manufacturers
>>don't want to play fairly, then perhaps some stiff taxes on these products
>>that price them out of the market might get the companies a bit more
>>concerned about designing these printers and cartridges so they are truly
>>more environmentally friendly.
>>
>
>
> First let me say that I am no fan of Epson.
>
> However, what ever name you want to give it, if they are able to dispose of
> them in an 'environmentally sound' manner then so be it.
> Only a very small percentage of printer users actually refill, so without
> this program these cartridges would end up in the landfill.
> Your message seems to indicate you are more upset that you (or your company)
> can not use them as refills than it does a concern about the environment.
>

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't have any personal interest in
refilling them, and I don't own any type of refilling company. In fact,
I don't own any Epson printer that I can't refill myself (that is by
design).

What Epson is doing is greenwashing. Disposing of plastics in this
manner is the absolutely worst manner of "reclaiming" any value from it.
Besides that I very much doubt there is a truly safe manner to
incinerate these cartridges, without considerable contaminant that will
need to be dealt with is some other manner, considering the components,
taking a highly processed petrochemical configuration and reducing it
down into an inefficient heat source is a horrible waste. Most plastics
can be cleaned and remanufactured into something else. Epson made no
effort either in their design or use of materials to allow these
cartridges to have a second life of any type.

And yes, it does bother me that Epson tries using bragging rights as a
recycler while their intent is much more likely to keep the cartridges
out of the hands of a company which might actually reuse them.

Art
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 7:35:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<ciS6d.6808$Du2.1384@edtnps89>...
> Anoni Moose wrote:
>
> > ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >>If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
> >>see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
> >>matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
> >>reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
> >>to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
> >>Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
> >>Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
> >>and already illegal in the EU.
> >
> >
> > Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
> > You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
> > you'd be willing to do so. :-) :-)
>
> Very cute... The Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts in the US makes it
> illegal for a company to tie consumables to a product sale. For some
> odd reason, no one has acted upon this to deal with printer companies
> yet. I think it is just a matter of time...

Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
think a court case would be tough to do.


> What killed the ALPS printers were problems with banding, and other
> output quality issues,

Mine didn't band any more often than the epson color inkjet that
I had in the same timeframe. Vast majority of prints had no banding
even if some did. And those which didn't were spectacular in
quality compared to inkjets of the same vintage (my
ALPS printer is the MD1300).

> unavailability of their consumable ribbons, the

I found that only a problem after the printers were discontinued
about four or five years ago. As recent as a year or so ago,
they still had'm on the shelf at our local Fry's. I only
switched to an inkjet early this year (the i9900) after having
used the ALPS printer for something like ten years (seemed
that long anyway).

> need for special and limited type of paper,

I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
see much difference in practice. :-)

> cost per print, and customer
> service problems.

Dye-subs had the reputation for being very expensive, but the
ALPS ones weren't. Mine wasn't. Price per printed page was similar to that
of inkjets of its time. Other brands of dyesubs were VERY
inefficient in the way they used ribbons and such, but the
ALPS wasn't bad. Biggest problem is that the printer itself
was very expensive. Runtime costs weren't. And only the dye-sub
mode needed the special paper (photo prints). For non-dyesub mode
printing, any old typewriter paper worked fine. I heard that
other brands of dye-sub paper (such as Tek's) would work, but
that wasn't much help.

Service I don't know about, my MD1300 still works fine now. Only
problem is that it indeed is hard getting supplies now (can be
gotten, but fewer internet sources all the time). Also inkjets
have finally gotten good enough to compete with the 600 dpi
ALPS dyesub and win (particularly with gamut, because the ALPS
dyesub really was a pigment-sub despite it's name).


> >>It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
> >>all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
> >>reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
> >>inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
> >>landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
> >>running out of them.
> >
> >
> > You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
> > technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
> > don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
> > if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
> > they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
> > model to compete?
> >
> >
>
> That's hardly what he's saying, that's what you wish to hear. Most
> advances in the last 5-7 years in inkjet technology have been:
>
> 1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
> 2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
> sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
> instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
> 3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
> generation

You're saying that they probably can make a 0.01 picoliter droplet
printer now that works great, doesn't clog, but they're holding it
from manufacturing on purpose? Epson's now getting rid of the photo-xx
inks when they finally got a droplet small enough in production
was to increase ink sales?.

In a business where there's not much competition, I'd agree that
they may do that in an instant. And maybe Epson who has owned the
photo printing market until recently had been doing that. But when
there's competition (as Canon is providing now), I can't see them
playing that game.

Those improvements that aren't enough in one "generation" of product
aren't really being complained about. I think the subject was
the destroying of the earth and pocketbooks by filling it with thrown
away product "for no reason" other than generating sales. Well, the
only generation of sales that causes the tossing of an old printer is one
that's major enough to make the buyer do just that.

If you're saying that printers are such high volume consumer products
that the economics are that such replacement is the only practical way
to fix things (rather than repair), then yes that's true. But that's
been true for at least fify years if not longer. Even back in the
transistor radio days of the 50's/60's folk complained that new ones
were cheaper than having a broken one fixed. The problem isn't that
the fixing is so expensive, it's a product of having the incredible
great price of the new one being so chaap due to the mass manufacturing
and mass distribution of it. That economic reality makes the availability
of repair even more expensive because nobody will want to do it other than
for warrantee repair (where costs to the mfgr is hidden).

> Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
> previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
> no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
> that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
> manuals and special tools.

Yes, the reality of mass economics kicks in, and it's the pits. Doing
things in mass mass quanities, makes for incredible product for
unbeliveable low prices. Unfortunately that produces expectations
that everything can be done for a proportional low cost. Repair and
replacement of a part may cost more than a new printer. It's not
a ripoff, it's just the economics of life. It's math. When it's
not doable economically, then it's usually not done.


> >
> >>In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
> >>printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
> >>like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
> >>reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
> >>Canon without being unreasonable to them.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
> > their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
> > the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
> > for Mercedes cars.
>
> He's speaking about a replacement part and it's value relative to the
> whole product. Everyone knows Rolls Royce is an overpriced car. You
> pay for the name and possibly, the service. They break down just like
> other brands, maybe even moreso. I think you'd be just a bit annoyed if
> every car company charged the same price Rolls did, or if a new engine
> for a car cost as much as the whole car did (before the cost of the
> servicing even was added in).

Yeah, I'll admit that I went a bit too far to make a point, but I think
the point being made was still proper.

If they sell 100,000 printers a year, and it sells for $100, and
they also sell 100,000 printer heads a year separately, then I'd
expect the printer head to cost a good deal less than $100. If
they are selling 500 printer heads a year, I'd not be surprised if
it costed the consumer $75. Cost to deliver the part isn't
just the manufacturing cost. If that printer head is one now made
ONLY for replacement purposes for that printer (only manufacturing
a year's worth in a batch of 500 units), I'd not be surprised
if it costed more than $100 retail. I say this not based on observation of
what happens, but in terms of my expectations of how much it costs
to provide the goods at the retail level worldwide including the stocking
of the parts, and the special ordering for parts in onsie quantity
rather than in large lots where the overhead of distribution is
amortized over a larger quantity than one.


Mike


>
> Art
>
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 6:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 1 Oct 2004 15:35:43 -0700, gewgle@yahoo.com (Anoni Moose) wrote:


>Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
>There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
>forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
>think a court case would be tough to do.

Yet. Did youi know that the new HP inks have, built-into the printer,
the capability to tell whether you're using approved HP inks or not?
And will then warn you if you're not using them? How long before the
printer says "F**k off, you're not using *those* inks in me..." ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 11:48:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anoni Moose wrote:

> Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<ciS6d.6808$Du2.1384@edtnps89>...
>
>>Anoni Moose wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
>>>>see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
>>>>matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
>>>>reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
>>>>to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
>>>>Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
>>>>Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
>>>>and already illegal in the EU.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
>>>You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
>>>you'd be willing to do so. :-) :-)
>>
>>Very cute... The Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts in the US makes it
>>illegal for a company to tie consumables to a product sale. For some
>>odd reason, no one has acted upon this to deal with printer companies
>>yet. I think it is just a matter of time...
>
>
> Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
> There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
> forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
> think a court case would be tough to do.
>
>

Is there? Have you been following the many law suits by companies like
Lexmark to try to stop 3rd party cartridges from being made? Have you
seen many HP clone cartridges?

>
>>unavailability of their consumable ribbons, the
>
>
> I found that only a problem after the printers were discontinued
> about four or five years ago. As recent as a year or so ago,
> they still had'm on the shelf at our local Fry's. I only
> switched to an inkjet early this year (the i9900) after having
> used the ALPS printer for something like ten years (seemed
> that long anyway).
>

It was a definite problem in Canada and from what I heard, parts of
Europe. I didn't follow the issue in the US.

>
>>need for special and limited type of paper,
>
>
> I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
> see much difference in practice. :-)
>

That's seems to be a fairly unique situation. Most people I know have a
wide variety of papers available to them which work with many inkjet
printers and provide very acceptable results.


>>cost per print, and customer
>>service problems.
>
>
> Dye-subs had the reputation for being very expensive, but the
> ALPS ones weren't. Mine wasn't. Price per printed page was similar to that
> of inkjets of its time. Other brands of dyesubs were VERY
> inefficient in the way they used ribbons and such, but the
> ALPS wasn't bad. Biggest problem is that the printer itself
> was very expensive. Runtime costs weren't. And only the dye-sub
> mode needed the special paper (photo prints). For non-dyesub mode
> printing, any old typewriter paper worked fine. I heard that
> other brands of dye-sub paper (such as Tek's) would work, but
> that wasn't much help.
>

The non-dyesub prints were wax based inks, which suffered from more
banding than the dyesub. I agree that Alps made much better use of the
consumable inks due to the ribbon approach. The cost per print needs to
have the cost of the printer amortized into it to get a real cost. As
you know, most inkjet companies download the cost of the printer to the
inks and papers. Alps may not have done so, (which I commend) but that
doesn't mean the cost per print is equal, you have to look as the
hardware and consumables together to get a real picture of costs.

>>>>It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
>>>>all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
>>>>reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
>>>>inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
>>>>landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
>>>>running out of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
>>>technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
>>>don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
>>>if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
>>>they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
>>>model to compete?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's hardly what he's saying, that's what you wish to hear. Most
>>advances in the last 5-7 years in inkjet technology have been:
>>
>>1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
>>2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
>>sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
>>instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
>>3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
>>generation
>
>
> You're saying that they probably can make a 0.01 picoliter droplet
> printer now that works great, doesn't clog, but they're holding it
> from manufacturing on purpose?

I'm not sure where you get that from what I wrote. What I am saying is
that the technology is driven in part by what can turn a good profit
within the business model in use. What I am saying is that a 1
picolitre droplet was probably possible to develop with similar cost of
R&D that went into developing the extra heads for low dye load inks,
variable dot technologies and new drivers to work with a 6 color system.
I'm saying that the low dye load inks were ultimately very lucrative
for the inkjet manufacturers in terms of inks sales, and allowed them to
sell a lot more ink.

Epson's now getting rid of the photo-xx
> inks when they finally got a droplet small enough in production
> was to increase ink sales?.

I don't know if Epson is getting rid of the low dye load inks or not...
I've heard rumors that Canon might be. Companies make decisions of what
technologies to pursue based upon which are likely to prove most
profitable. Smaller dot sizes (which reduces ink consumption and sales)
versus a system to actually increase ink sales... which do you think was
emphasized?

>
> In a business where there's not much competition, I'd agree that
> they may do that in an instant.

There was very little competition. And there is some collusion in many
industries also. Interestingly, Epson's first color printers (I know
because I owned one) sold in Canada for $1000 (about $800 US at the
time, as I recall) . The Epson Stylus Color has massive cartridges that
sold "reasonably" compared to others. In fact, I have a report
commissioned by Epson, although carried out by an independent company,
which , at the time compared that printers per page costs to other
similar products on the market at the time (I believe one was a HP and
one a Canon). The cost per page (not including original cost of
ownership) found the Epson the cheapest to run.

However, all the inkjet printer companies began to follow suit and lower
printer costs while tremendously raising cartridge costs at some point.
And don't tell me millions weren't invested in many of those companies
developing design strategies to make their cartridges difficult or
impossible to refill. That was not for public benefit at all.

And maybe Epson who has owned the
> photo printing market until recently had been doing that. But when
> there's competition (as Canon is providing now), I can't see them
> playing that game.
>

Perhaps you are correct, and we'll see some changes not that Canon is a
real competitor for Epson again. But Canon has its own set of issues,
such as developing pigmented inks that work in their head and a head
that either lasts longer or has a cheaper replacement.


> Those improvements that aren't enough in one "generation" of product
> aren't really being complained about. I think the subject was
> the destroying of the earth and pocketbooks by filling it with thrown
> away product "for no reason" other than generating sales. Well, the
> only generation of sales that causes the tossing of an old printer is one
> that's major enough to make the buyer do just that.
>

Not true, in fact a perfect example are the people who want to replace
the heads on their Canon printers but are finding it so costly it make
no sense to do so.

My point is a vast majority of inkjet printers that have been tossed
were due to the cost or unavailability of parts, inability to self
service them, and cost of ink cartridges.

> If you're saying that printers are such high volume consumer products
> that the economics are that such replacement is the only practical way
> to fix things (rather than repair), then yes that's true. But that's
> been true for at least fify years if not longer.

No it hasn't and I don't know where you get this from. I don't know how
old you are, but I can almost recall 50 years ago. Back then almost
everything was salvaged and repaired.

Even back in the
> transistor radio days of the 50's/60's folk complained that new ones
> were cheaper than having a broken one fixed. The problem isn't that
> the fixing is so expensive, it's a product of having the incredible
> great price of the new one being so chaap due to the mass manufacturing
> and mass distribution of it. That economic reality makes the availability
> of repair even more expensive because nobody will want to do it other than
> for warrantee repair (where costs to the mfgr is hidden).
>
>

Again, this is hogwash. A family member did electronics repairs for
many of those 50 years you speak of, starting with radios and TVs and
moving up to very high tech gear for studios. It is only in the last
10-15 years that the cost of labor and repair has outstripped cost of
replacement, and most of that has occurred because we live off the backs
of "3rd world" labor, and because no one pays the piper for the
pollution of creating and burying the stuff. The true costs of
manufacturing are not actually considered in the costs.

Fixing VCRs was a viable business until less than 5 years ago when the
cost of the units themselves came down to under $100.

>>Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
>>previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
>>no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
>>that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
>>manuals and special tools.
>
>
> Yes, the reality of mass economics kicks in, and it's the pits. Doing
> things in mass mass quanities, makes for incredible product for
> unbeliveable low prices.

Again, because right now no one is paying for the true costs of creating
and burying the components. We do not pay the real cost of oil, from
the political instability and wars to the environmental costs to the
diminishing of the resource. We choose to live in a society where we
"stick it" to the next generation to deal with the problems we create now.

Unfortunately that produces expectations
> that everything can be done for a proportional low cost. Repair and
> replacement of a part may cost more than a new printer. It's not
> a ripoff, it's just the economics of life. It's math. When it's
> not doable economically, then it's usually not done.
>

It's flagrantly fake math. It's math based upon exploitation of poorer
countries having poorer standards of living.
>
>
>>>>In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
>>>>printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
>>>>like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
>>>>reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
>>>>Canon without being unreasonable to them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
>>>their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
>>>the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
>>>for Mercedes cars.
>>
>>He's speaking about a replacement part and it's value relative to the
>>whole product. Everyone knows Rolls Royce is an overpriced car. You
>>pay for the name and possibly, the service. They break down just like
>>other brands, maybe even moreso. I think you'd be just a bit annoyed if
>>every car company charged the same price Rolls did, or if a new engine
>>for a car cost as much as the whole car did (before the cost of the
>>servicing even was added in).
>
>
> Yeah, I'll admit that I went a bit too far to make a point, but I think
> the point being made was still proper.
>
> If they sell 100,000 printers a year, and it sells for $100, and
> they also sell 100,000 printer heads a year separately, then I'd
> expect the printer head to cost a good deal less than $100. If
> they are selling 500 printer heads a year, I'd not be surprised if
> it costed the consumer $75.

If the price for the replacement head was more reasonable, indeed more
people would repair them. It's a chicken and egg thing. The truth is
if they sold 100,000 printers, eventually, they will sell at least
100,000 extra heads if people started to keep the printers and repair
them. Further those heads take up a heck of a lot less room to store,
cost a heck of a lot less to make (than the printers) and cost a heck of
a lot less to ship. In fact, how about just providing an extra head
with each printer in the box?

Cost to deliver the part isn't
> just the manufacturing cost. If that printer head is one now made
> ONLY for replacement purposes for that printer (only manufacturing
> a year's worth in a batch of 500 units), I'd not be surprised
> if it costed more than $100 retail. I say this not based on observation of
> what happens, but in terms of my expectations of how much it costs
> to provide the goods at the retail level worldwide including the stocking
> of the parts, and the special ordering for parts in onsie quantity
> rather than in large lots where the overhead of distribution is
> amortized over a larger quantity than one.
>
The parts business has always been an overpriced scam. Knowing people
who have worked in electronics repair, I know manufacturers use their
parts sales as a way of controlling how long they wish a product to be
serviceable. Legislation was necessary to force most of them to carry
parts for a minimal time, even. The inkjet companies have just taken it
to the next level, which they learned about from the sale of ink cartridges.

Art
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 4:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<qf78d.20093$223.13201@edtnps89>...

> > Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
> > There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
> > forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
> > think a court case would be tough to do.
> >
> >
>
> Is there? Have you been following the many law suits by companies like
> Lexmark to try to stop 3rd party cartridges from being made? Have you
> seen many HP clone cartridges?

Yes, HP's are harder to clone, but I suspect there still are
refilled cartridges available or refill inks for them But in any
case, talking about the overall market, there's a lot of third
party ink cartridge providers, and specifically to the fellow
who started "this", there are Canon ones.



> > I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
> > see much difference in practice. :-)
> >
>
> That's seems to be a fairly unique situation. Most people I know have a
> wide variety of papers available to them which work with many inkjet
> printers and provide very acceptable results.

My point is that although I have more papers available for photo printing
than I did with my ALPS dyesub printer, in practice I use only one for
the most part. For non-dyesub printing, the ALPS worked on most anything,
but I rarely used it for non-dyesub use where it's quality wasn't so
good. Its dyesub mode was awesome, but it's non-dyesub mode was
not. For me it was a dyesub photo-printer, so that's where my opinion
comes from. Using it in non-dyesub mode made no sense seeing as how
the quality was so good in dyesub mode. Only time I used "regular" mode
for photos was for making T-shirt transfers (a rare happening, usually
at Valentine's day or my wife's birthday). For non-photo use, a much
cheaper printer would be more appropriate .



> The non-dyesub prints were wax based inks, which suffered from more
> banding than the dyesub. I agree that Alps made much better use of the
> consumable inks due to the ribbon approach. The cost per print needs to
> have the cost of the printer amortized into it to get a real cost. As
> you know, most inkjet companies download the cost of the printer to the
> inks and papers. Alps may not have done so, (which I commend) but that
> doesn't mean the cost per print is equal, you have to look as the
> hardware and consumables together to get a real picture of costs.

That's a good point. How many prints one makes would make a big
difference. A casual printer very much benefits from the current
Gillette business model being used for consumer printers.


> >>1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
> >>2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
> >>sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
> >>instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
> >>3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
> >>generation
> >
> >
> > You're saying that they probably can make a 0.01 picoliter droplet
> > printer now that works great, doesn't clog, but they're holding it
> > from manufacturing on purpose?
>
> I'm not sure where you get that from what I wrote. What I am saying is
> that the technology is driven in part by what can turn a good profit
> within the business model in use. What I am saying is that a 1
> picolitre droplet was probably possible to develop with similar cost of
> R&D that went into developing the extra heads for low dye load inks,
> variable dot technologies and new drivers to work with a 6 color system.

My comment came from your #2. I disagree with your conjecture above,
particularly if one also takes into account the time it takes to do
those things. Coming out with product sooner is financially advantageous
to coming out later. When the photo-magenta and cyan inks came out
(quite some time ago) dropsizes were something enormous. I don't want
to SWAG a number other than to say it would have been double-digit pl.
Epson has taken 1pl to be the boundary to get rid of them. Design time
for adding the light-inks to improve results for immediate marketplace
advantage would have been tremendously faster as well as less expensive
to develop than making 1-pl drops in production printers.



>
> I don't know if Epson is getting rid of the low dye load inks or not...

They did so in the new R800.

> I've heard rumors that Canon might be. Companies make decisions of what
> technologies to pursue based upon which are likely to prove most
> profitable. Smaller dot sizes (which reduces ink consumption and sales)
> versus a system to actually increase ink sales... which do you think was
> emphasized?

Well, dotsizes have dropped very very substantially, while number of
inks has barely doubled.

>
> >
> > In a business where there's not much competition, I'd agree that
> > they may do that in an instant.
>
> There was very little competition. And there is some collusion in many
> industries also. Interestingly, Epson's first color printers (I know
> because I owned one) sold in Canada for $1000 (about $800 US at the
> time, as I recall) . The Epson Stylus Color has massive cartridges that
> sold "reasonably" compared to others. In fact, I have a report

Yes, I have one too. Still sits in my garage (heads probably
dried solid by now). Still printed as of a few years ago (wife
was using it), but pretty crummy by current print quality standards.


> commissioned by Epson, although carried out by an independent company,
> which , at the time compared that printers per page costs to other
> similar products on the market at the time (I believe one was a HP and
> one a Canon). The cost per page (not including original cost of
> ownership) found the Epson the cheapest to run.

Especially after using made-in-China clone inks. :-)

>
> However, all the inkjet printer companies began to follow suit and lower
> printer costs while tremendously raising cartridge costs at some point.
> And don't tell me millions weren't invested in many of those companies
> developing design strategies to make their cartridges difficult or
> impossible to refill. That was not for public benefit at all.

You can now buy a printer who's quality will run rings around that
printer that you and I have (and paid good money for) for under
100 USD. It's still a mechanical thing, not benefitting that
substantially from semiconductor cost reductions. I think Epson
was doing two things. One, it was selling it for more profit than
they sell their current printers. Secondly, at the time Epson was
a has-been company. Their dot-matrix kingdom was gone and they were
nothing in inkjets. They needed a cost/quality blockbuster to get
them back into the game (something Canon's been doing lately
with their printers the last few years). I think that also was
a factor in their market placement then.


>
> And maybe Epson who has owned the
> > photo printing market until recently had been doing that. But when
> > there's competition (as Canon is providing now), I can't see them
> > playing that game.
> >
>
> Perhaps you are correct, and we'll see some changes not that Canon is a
> real competitor for Epson again. But Canon has its own set of issues,
> such as developing pigmented inks that work in their head and a head
> that either lasts longer or has a cheaper replacement.

True, if they can't counter Epson's advertising in some other way.
Canon has the advantage that they're big in the cameras that feed
the printers with things to print, while Epson is a nil factor there.
They may be able to move what the public uses to choose.

>
>
> > Those improvements that aren't enough in one "generation" of product
> > aren't really being complained about. I think the subject was
> > the destroying of the earth and pocketbooks by filling it with thrown
> > away product "for no reason" other than generating sales. Well, the
> > only generation of sales that causes the tossing of an old printer is one
> > that's major enough to make the buyer do just that.
> >
>
> Not true, in fact a perfect example are the people who want to replace
> the heads on their Canon printers but are finding it so costly it make
> no sense to do so.

Good point, but I don't know if that's a proper characterization of
the market "in general".

> My point is a vast majority of inkjet printers that have been tossed
> were due to the cost or unavailability of parts, inability to self
> service them, and cost of ink cartridges.

Yes, but at least some of what you say I think is a non-issue. Making
things serviceable, let alone self-serviceable, is a good goal, but
in markets where cost is being squeezed for tenth's of cents (giving
the consumer low purchase prices), I don't know if higher purchase-prices
would justify those features happening, particularly in the context of
it being in a market of advancing technology (with inkjets only recently
becoming nearly "photo-quality" in my opinion, despite the rhetoric).
Should manufactures raise prices 10% (or whatever) and have them more
self-serviceable? Would that be wanted by the market in general? It
even then would only work if most people replaced their print heads
rather than buying another printer that costs less than the old one
and prints even better.

Canon makes head replacement a self-service job (assuming one can
find a head :-). Epson, the market leader in photo-printers,
does not. Is this huring Epson? I don't know. Certainly,
the head-replacement-with-ink method HP has been using (they still
doing that? I haven't checked) was successful for business use.


>
> > If you're saying that printers are such high volume consumer products
> > that the economics are that such replacement is the only practical way
> > to fix things (rather than repair), then yes that's true. But that's
> > been true for at least fify years if not longer.
>
> No it hasn't and I don't know where you get this from. I don't know how
> old you are, but I can almost recall 50 years ago. Back then almost
> everything was salvaged and repaired.

Ever try having your transistor radio fixed? I did when I was a kid
and even when a 6-trannie one was spendy, fixing wasn't economic. I
remember being devistated!

People did fix tube gear, I did. People didn't keep them despite their
great self-servicablity though.

I'm 52.

>
> Even back in the
> > transistor radio days of the 50's/60's folk complained that new ones
> > were cheaper than having a broken one fixed. The problem isn't that
> > the fixing is so expensive, it's a product of having the incredible
> > great price of the new one being so chaap due to the mass manufacturing
> > and mass distribution of it. That economic reality makes the availability
> > of repair even more expensive because nobody will want to do it other than
> > for warrantee repair (where costs to the mfgr is hidden).
> >
> >
>
> Again, this is hogwash. A family member did electronics repairs for
> many of those 50 years you speak of, starting with radios and TVs and
> moving up to very high tech gear for studios. It is only in the last
> 10-15 years that the cost of labor and repair has outstripped cost of
> replacement, and most of that has occurred because we live off the backs
> of "3rd world" labor, and because no one pays the piper for the
> pollution of creating and burying the stuff. The true costs of
> manufacturing are not actually considered in the costs.

Probably true, but that's not how I'd choose to repair or not.

If I could have my old one fixed for $7 or buy a new one for $11, I'd
probably go with the new one. Why? Because for $7 I still have my
old one. It's other components also are older too, and probably less
reliable. Also probably isn't as good as a new one. So cheaper?
Yes, but economic? I'm not sure. Could just be me.

> Fixing VCRs was a viable business until less than 5 years ago when the
> cost of the units themselves came down to under $100.

As low as 40 USD, or even lower. But with VCRs there's another
aspect. There performace hasn't changed much of any in a long
long time. Only the prices have changed. If you're having the
head swapped out (what? not self-replaceable?), you'll have about
the same as new one. Not generally true with printers where the
new-unit alternative is likely better at what it does.

>
> >>Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
> >>previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
> >>no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
> >>that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
> >>manuals and special tools.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the reality of mass economics kicks in, and it's the pits. Doing
> > things in mass mass quanities, makes for incredible product for
> > unbeliveable low prices.
>
> Again, because right now no one is paying for the true costs of creating
> and burying the components. We do not pay the real cost of oil, from
> the political instability and wars to the environmental costs to the
> diminishing of the resource. We choose to live in a society where we
> "stick it" to the next generation to deal with the problems we create now.

True. But that's a matter of getting the costs rolled in, not trying to
do a balancing distortion of the "natural forces". Just makes things
harder to fix in the end.

>
> Unfortunately that produces expectations
> > that everything can be done for a proportional low cost. Repair and
> > replacement of a part may cost more than a new printer. It's not
> > a ripoff, it's just the economics of life. It's math. When it's
> > not doable economically, then it's usually not done.
> >
>
> It's flagrantly fake math. It's math based upon exploitation of poorer
> countries having poorer standards of living.

No, it's real math based on that.


> If the price for the replacement head was more reasonable, indeed more
> people would repair them. It's a chicken and egg thing. The truth is
> if they sold 100,000 printers, eventually, they will sell at least
> 100,000 extra heads if people started to keep the printers and repair
> them. Further those heads take up a heck of a lot less room to store,
> cost a heck of a lot less to make (than the printers) and cost a heck of
> a lot less to ship. In fact, how about just providing an extra head
> with each printer in the box?

I like that idea. :-) I think these are only now starting
to become reasonable. "Photo" inkjets, despite my thinking the
original Epson Color stylus to be "great!" at the time, really
haven't been all that good. One reason why it took me so long to
get away from my dyesub despite ALPS discontinuing ALL printer
sales here in the US something like five years ago. I really
hadn't liked the quality of inkjets until recently. Once the
quality is adequate for long term use, then unit-logevity issues
come into play.

Note that I think we both think that printer companies would
generally be happy for us to use the same printer "forever". They
don't make their money off selling them.

Mike

P.S. - Been enjoying the conversation. 95% of the time we usually
totally agree on things, and we haven't had the opporunity. :-)
I don't use my "real" email address for usenet postings else
my already insane spam load goes even higher.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 6:43:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...

> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.

SAME thing happened to my i560 this week. Fortunately, the unit is
under warranty, and the local Canon repair outlet replaced the
printhead free of charge.

The repair guy told me the replacement will probably last longer than
the original -- implying that Canon's quality control is slipping
badly.

Otherwise, I really like this printer, and have found Canon's much
easier to maintain than HPs.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 6:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <qf78d.20093$223.13201@edtnps89>,
Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:


> > I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
> > see much difference in practice. :-)
> >
>
> That's seems to be a fairly unique situation. Most people I know have a
> wide variety of papers available to them which work with many inkjet
> printers and provide very acceptable results.

I get clearly truer color with Canon papers and inks on an i9100. With
black and white, other papers get a color caste that is impossible to
remove.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 3:03:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Bob Jones" <questionz_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4396eabe.0410051343.73dc9f33@posting.google.com...
> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
> news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>
> SAME thing happened to my i560 this week. Fortunately, the unit is
> under warranty, and the local Canon repair outlet replaced the
> printhead free of charge.
>
> The repair guy told me the replacement will probably last longer than
> the original -- implying that Canon's quality control is slipping
> badly.
>

Hmm, he replaces your printhead with a like part ....
I am baffled how this would conclude that their quality control is slipping
?
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 1:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Perhaps the tech was suggesting that the head which was installed as a
replacement was an older item in stock for some time, and that the one
in the printer that failed was from a newer batch?

Art

PC Medic wrote:

> "Bob Jones" <questionz_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4396eabe.0410051343.73dc9f33@posting.google.com...
>
>>ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
>>news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>>>Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>>>and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>>
>>SAME thing happened to my i560 this week. Fortunately, the unit is
>>under warranty, and the local Canon repair outlet replaced the
>>printhead free of charge.
>>
>>The repair guy told me the replacement will probably last longer than
>>the original -- implying that Canon's quality control is slipping
>>badly.
>>
>
>
> Hmm, he replaces your printhead with a like part ....
> I am baffled how this would conclude that their quality control is slipping
> ?
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 1:56:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Perhaps, but there have been no changes


"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nd7ad.9533$663.5636@edtnps84...
> Perhaps the tech was suggesting that the head which was installed as a
> replacement was an older item in stock for some time, and that the one in
> the printer that failed was from a newer batch?
>
> Art
>
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>> "Bob Jones" <questionz_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4396eabe.0410051343.73dc9f33@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
>>>news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>>>>and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>>>
>>>SAME thing happened to my i560 this week. Fortunately, the unit is
>>>under warranty, and the local Canon repair outlet replaced the
>>>printhead free of charge.
>>>
>>>The repair guy told me the replacement will probably last longer than
>>>the original -- implying that Canon's quality control is slipping
>>>badly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, he replaces your printhead with a like part ....
>> I am baffled how this would conclude that their quality control is
>> slipping ?
>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 5:29:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Except, perhaps, for manufacturing quality, or quality control?

Art

PC Medic wrote:

> Perhaps, but there have been no changes
>
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:nd7ad.9533$663.5636@edtnps84...
>
>>Perhaps the tech was suggesting that the head which was installed as a
>>replacement was an older item in stock for some time, and that the one in
>>the printer that failed was from a newer batch?
>>
>>Art
>>
>>PC Medic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Jones" <questionz_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4396eabe.0410051343.73dc9f33@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
>>>>news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>>>>>and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>>>>
>>>>SAME thing happened to my i560 this week. Fortunately, the unit is
>>>>under warranty, and the local Canon repair outlet replaced the
>>>>printhead free of charge.
>>>>
>>>>The repair guy told me the replacement will probably last longer than
>>>>the original -- implying that Canon's quality control is slipping
>>>>badly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm, he replaces your printhead with a like part ....
>>>I am baffled how this would conclude that their quality control is
>>>slipping ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:15:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Andrew Mayo wrote:

> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
> news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>
> It's beginning to look like a large number of Canon 'S' series owners
> have had printheads fail at about the 5,000 page mark.

Not me. My S520 was only about 15 months old when the head quit.

It was after my second ink replacement (very lightly used). The problem was
that I decided to buy Best Buy's brand of ink. I think it's called "Basix".
That was the end of it.

Live and learn.
December 21, 2004 7:30:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Think
with ULTRA fine resolution and 2 pica L DROP size
these heads will clog .... epson too...
HP lexMARK BEST option
you can refill them 10x ...
fixed heads no advantage canon / epson
"crabbs" <crabbs347@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C5C4E99D79Ccrabbs347comcastnet@63.218.45.44...
> Andrew Mayo wrote:
>
>> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message
>> news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> It's beginning to look like a large number of Canon 'S' series owners
>> have had printheads fail at about the 5,000 page mark.
>
> Not me. My S520 was only about 15 months old when the head quit.
>
> It was after my second ink replacement (very lightly used). The problem
> was
> that I decided to buy Best Buy's brand of ink. I think it's called
> "Basix".
> That was the end of it.
>
> Live and learn.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrotenews:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10
@posting.google.com:

> I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>
> When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> replaceable.
>
> Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>
> I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
> (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
> wholesaler, at least in London.
> (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
> much the price of the printer.
>
> As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
> as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>
> In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
> perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
> contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
> manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
> end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>
> There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
> in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
> the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
> course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
> rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
> which is clearly ridiculous.
>
> I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
> than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
> intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
> certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
> component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
> page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
> pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
> would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
> printer in the first place.
>
> I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
> regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
> makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
> the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
> gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
> the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
> foster this 'throw away' culture.
>

I've been in and around the computer business since 1985 and I can tell you
that Canon has always been known for this scurvy trick of the printheads.

This is the reason why so many people buy other printers that dont' use
that type of printhead; like the HP which has it's printheads in the cart,
not on on printer.

Canon and their sales reps are told to lie to customers when asked about
printhead and MTBF and cost.

They don't want you to buy a new printhead; somehow they think the sheep
will just go and buy another canon printer instead!

I bought one recently because of the price and I won't buy Epson and I'm
sick of HP, and believe it or not, the cheap bastards didn't include a .75c
USB cable in with the printer!!!!!

But my all time favorite nasty dirty trick is HP and their including carts
that are only half full with new printers, and calling the carts by another
model like "B" instead of "A". All they are is half full, so you run out
right away and have to go to the store in the middle of the night to buy
$80 worth of new carts for your $70 printer.

But you can fight back....HP carts are really easy to refill...for pennies.

--
---Mapanari---
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrotenews:Tr06d.9716$0j.2976@lakeread07:

>
> "Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
> news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand
>> sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really
>> worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of
>> Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would
>> have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated,
>> whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is
>> offset by the cartridges which are so cheap.
>>
>> The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
>> S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
>> There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but
>> it's a little slow for me nowadays!
>>
>> Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired'
>> units!
>> --
>
> Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This
> enables owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to
> receive a discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also
> shipped (free) to your door.
>
>
>
>

Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
payouts...worthless.

They'll give a discount off the retail price, and no one in their right
mind except incompetant or crooked government purchasing agents pay that
price.



--
---Mapanari---
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:28:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrotenews:Qb16d.9719$0j.86@lakeread07:


>
> I just got the iP4000 and love it.
> Had an old S520 (4 years old) that started grinding about 1 in 10 times
> I would use it after kids yanked a paper jam out of it.
> After calling to see if cost effective to get repaired Canon offered me
> 10% off the iP4000 and shipped it next day to my door free of charge.
> Not a bad printer for $137 !!
>
>
>
>


I just bought the iP3000 because I see not much diference between the two and
I paid $52 shipping to my door, after $20 rebate.

So far I like it, but will letchew all no later....


--
---Mapanari---
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:42:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There is a big difference. The 5th Photo dye black cartridge enhances
many of the prints. You are not mixing black from the color ink tanks.
It is on sale after rebate at Frys for $100.00.

Mapanari wrote:

>"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrotenews:Qb16d.9719$0j.86@lakeread07:
>
>
>
>
>>I just got the iP4000 and love it.
>>Had an old S520 (4 years old) that started grinding about 1 in 10 times
>>I would use it after kids yanked a paper jam out of it.
>>After calling to see if cost effective to get repaired Canon offered me
>>10% off the iP4000 and shipped it next day to my door free of charge.
>>Not a bad printer for $137 !!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I just bought the iP3000 because I see not much diference between the two and
>I paid $52 shipping to my door, after $20 rebate.
>
>So far I like it, but will letchew all no later....
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
> payouts...worthless.

With most new inkjet printers easily on sale for <$50 (ie. the price
of a new set of color + black ink cartridge), why even worry?!?

When it breaks or even runs out of ink, simply toss the old printer
(or donate), and buy a new one! Can be cheaper than buying a new set of
cartridges (when the sales have printers going for <$40), and you'll
never have to worry about breaking the printer!

=)

Heck, I'd just stock up on replacement printers instead of cartridges
even with sales! (ie. instead of swapping out used for new carts,
simply swap out old for new printer)
April 1, 2005 5:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I empathise with you completely on this issue. I am just surprised that you
opted for another manufacturer who uses the same technology in their
printers. I think printers with internal printheads is a serious design
fault especially since they are soo expensive to replace the printheads. It
would be good if these printheads were easily changeable by the user eg like
in my electronic typewriter which came with a spare printhead as well. Until
these features are readily available with printers with a fixed printhead, I
would avoid them like the PLAGUE.




"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962AB0F2DF38mapi@216.168.3.64...
> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrotenews:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
> > of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
> > have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
> >
> > When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
> > printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
> > replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
> > clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
> > printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
> > replaceable.
> >
> > Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
> > and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
> >
> > I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
> > (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
> > wholesaler, at least in London.
> > (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
> > much the price of the printer.
> >
> > As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
> > as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
> >
> > In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
> > perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
> > contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
> > manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
> > end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
> >
> > There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
> > in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
> > the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
> > course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
> > rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
> > which is clearly ridiculous.
> >
> > I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
> > than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
> > intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
> > certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
> > component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
> > page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
> > pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
> > would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
> > printer in the first place.
> >
> > I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
> > regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
> > makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
> > the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
> > gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
> > the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
> > foster this 'throw away' culture.
> >
>
> I've been in and around the computer business since 1985 and I can tell
you
> that Canon has always been known for this scurvy trick of the printheads.
>
> This is the reason why so many people buy other printers that dont' use
> that type of printhead; like the HP which has it's printheads in the cart,
> not on on printer.
>
> Canon and their sales reps are told to lie to customers when asked about
> printhead and MTBF and cost.
>
> They don't want you to buy a new printhead; somehow they think the sheep
> will just go and buy another canon printer instead!
>
> I bought one recently because of the price and I won't buy Epson and I'm
> sick of HP, and believe it or not, the cheap bastards didn't include a
..75c
> USB cable in with the printer!!!!!
>
> But my all time favorite nasty dirty trick is HP and their including carts
> that are only half full with new printers, and calling the carts by
another
> model like "B" instead of "A". All they are is half full, so you run out
> right away and have to go to the store in the middle of the night to buy
> $80 worth of new carts for your $70 printer.
>
> But you can fight back....HP carts are really easy to refill...for
pennies.
>
> --
> ---Mapanari---
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I've written this dozen of times. People who do not wish to learn some
basic maintenance of their printers, should stay away from Epson
printers, because, due to their permanent ink head, they will eventually
need to have some cleaning maintenance done. Doing so, which takes
15-30 minutes once a year (YMMV) at the cost of about $1 in cleaning
supplies, will almost always bring the printer beck to like new print
quality, even on a 8 year old printer. One nice thing about Epson's
head design is that as long as you use a reasonable compatible ink the
basic quality of the print as dictated by the head will be there. With
printers that use an integrated head and cartridge unit you will not
often find a 3rd party product that works as well as the OEM, and
refilled cartridges are "used" heads that do degrade from use. The
permanent Epson head doesn't degrade from use unless the use is
considerable, or a very inappropriate ink was used.

Many people who buy Epson printers are repeat purchasers, not because
the printer fails, but because the people are very pleased with the
print results. If most people's experience with Epson printers was like
yours, they would be losing market share, in fact, they wouldn't have
any customers left by now. Clearly, that isn't the case, considering
the back orders on the R1800, for instance.

I am awaiting for clarification of your warranty experience with your
Epson printer. After you indicated they wouldn't fix a head clog under
warranty, that you spent a great deal on trying to fix an ink head clog
yourself, apparently unsuccessfully,, and other pronouncements, I am
very interested in the full story. Which printer, when did the clog
occurred, what exactly Epson did when you attempted a warranty repair
during the warranty period, which country you were dealing with, etc.

Art

V wrote:

> I empathise with you completely on this issue. I am just surprised that you
> opted for another manufacturer who uses the same technology in their
> printers. I think printers with internal printheads is a serious design
> fault especially since they are soo expensive to replace the printheads. It
> would be good if these printheads were easily changeable by the user eg like
> in my electronic typewriter which came with a spare printhead as well. Until
> these features are readily available with printers with a fixed printhead, I
> would avoid them like the PLAGUE.
>
>
>
>
> "Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962AB0F2DF38mapi@216.168.3.64...
>
>>ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrotenews:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10
>>@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>>I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
>>>of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
>>>have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>>>
>>>When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
>>>printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
>>>replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
>>>clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
>>>printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
>>>replaceable.
>>>
>>>Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>>>and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>>>
>>>I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
>>>(a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
>>>wholesaler, at least in London.
>>>(b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
>>>much the price of the printer.
>>>
>>>As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
>>>as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>>>
>>>In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
>>>perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
>>>contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
>>>manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
>>>end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>>>
>>>There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
>>>in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
>>>the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
>>>course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
>>>rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
>>>which is clearly ridiculous.
>>>
>>>I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
>>>than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
>>>intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
>>>certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
>>>component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
>>>page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
>>>pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
>>>would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
>>>printer in the first place.
>>>
>>>I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
>>>regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
>>>makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
>>>the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
>>>gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
>>>the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
>>>foster this 'throw away' culture.
>>>
>>
>>I've been in and around the computer business since 1985 and I can tell
>
> you
>
>>that Canon has always been known for this scurvy trick of the printheads.
>>
>>This is the reason why so many people buy other printers that dont' use
>>that type of printhead; like the HP which has it's printheads in the cart,
>>not on on printer.
>>
>>Canon and their sales reps are told to lie to customers when asked about
>>printhead and MTBF and cost.
>>
>>They don't want you to buy a new printhead; somehow they think the sheep
>>will just go and buy another canon printer instead!
>>
>>I bought one recently because of the price and I won't buy Epson and I'm
>>sick of HP, and believe it or not, the cheap bastards didn't include a
>
> .75c
>
>>USB cable in with the printer!!!!!
>>
>>But my all time favorite nasty dirty trick is HP and their including carts
>>that are only half full with new printers, and calling the carts by
>
> another
>
>>model like "B" instead of "A". All they are is half full, so you run out
>>right away and have to go to the store in the middle of the night to buy
>>$80 worth of new carts for your $70 printer.
>>
>>But you can fight back....HP carts are really easy to refill...for
>
> pennies.
>
>>--
>>---Mapanari---
>
>
>
April 3, 2005 3:24:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:44:49 GMT, "V" <info@test.com> wrote:

>I empathise with you completely on this issue. I am just surprised that you
>opted for another manufacturer who uses the same technology in their
>printers. I think printers with internal printheads is a serious design
>fault especially since they are soo expensive to replace the printheads. It
>would be good if these printheads were easily changeable by the user eg like
>in my electronic typewriter which came with a spare printhead as well. Until
>these features are readily available with printers with a fixed printhead, I
>would avoid them like the PLAGUE.
>
>




Epsom Print heads do not burn out and can outlast any other and if they get
clogged they are easy to clean or removed by a Tech..


If fact I think we should avoid you like the PLAGUE, as you just do not have
a clue.

Do you work for HP..?




>
>"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns962AB0F2DF38mapi@216.168.3.64...
>> ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrotenews:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10
>> @posting.google.com:
>>
>> > I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
>> > of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
>> > have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.
>> >
>> > When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
>> > printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
>> > replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
>> > clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
>> > printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
>> > replaceable.
>> >
>> > Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
>> > and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.
>> >
>> > I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
>> > (a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
>> > wholesaler, at least in London.
>> > (b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
>> > much the price of the printer.
>> >
>> > As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
>> > as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.
>> >
>> > In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
>> > perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
>> > contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
>> > manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
>> > end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.
>> >
>> > There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
>> > in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
>> > the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
>> > course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
>> > rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
>> > which is clearly ridiculous.
>> >
>> > I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
>> > than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
>> > intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
>> > certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
>> > component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
>> > page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
>> > pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
>> > would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
>> > printer in the first place.
>> >
>> > I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
>> > regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
>> > makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
>> > the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
>> > gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
>> > the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
>> > foster this 'throw away' culture.
>> >
>>
>> I've been in and around the computer business since 1985 and I can tell
>you
>> that Canon has always been known for this scurvy trick of the printheads.
>>
>> This is the reason why so many people buy other printers that dont' use
>> that type of printhead; like the HP which has it's printheads in the cart,
>> not on on printer.
>>
>> Canon and their sales reps are told to lie to customers when asked about
>> printhead and MTBF and cost.
>>
>> They don't want you to buy a new printhead; somehow they think the sheep
>> will just go and buy another canon printer instead!
>>
>> I bought one recently because of the price and I won't buy Epson and I'm
>> sick of HP, and believe it or not, the cheap bastards didn't include a
>.75c
>> USB cable in with the printer!!!!!
>>
>> But my all time favorite nasty dirty trick is HP and their including carts
>> that are only half full with new printers, and calling the carts by
>another
>> model like "B" instead of "A". All they are is half full, so you run out
>> right away and have to go to the store in the middle of the night to buy
>> $80 worth of new carts for your $70 printer.
>>
>> But you can fight back....HP carts are really easy to refill...for
>pennies.
>>
>> --
>> ---Mapanari---
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>
> I've been in and around the computer business since 1985 and I can tell
> you
> that Canon has always been known for this scurvy trick of the printheads.
>

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this statement!

> This is the reason why so many people buy other printers that dont' use
> that type of printhead; like the HP which has it's printheads in the cart,
> not on on printer.
>

Then I saw this and thought...how could he say anything more amusing....


> Canon and their sales reps are told to lie to customers when asked about
> printhead and MTBF and cost.
>

Then you did it here! You smoke much crack before you posted this garbage?!


> They don't want you to buy a new printhead; somehow they think the sheep
> will just go and buy another canon printer instead!
>

You of course realize the printhead is covered under the warranty, of course
you do.
So you're right, they don't want you to buy a new printhead. They are going
to give it to you free of charge!
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962AB1570E38Emapi@216.168.3.64...
> "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrotenews:Tr06d.9716$0j.2976@lakeread07:
>
>>
>> "Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
>> news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand
>>> sum of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really
>>> worried about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of
>>> Canon printers is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would
>>> have been about $90. They are not easily available as the OP stated,
>>> whichever country you are in. I guess the cost of the printhead is
>>> offset by the cartridges which are so cheap.
>>>
>>> The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
>>> S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
>>> There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but
>>> it's a little slow for me nowadays!
>>>
>>> Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired'
>>> units!
>>> --
>>
>> Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This
>> enables owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to
>> receive a discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also
>> shipped (free) to your door.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
> payouts...worthless.
>
> They'll give a discount off the retail price, and no one in their right
> mind except incompetant or crooked government purchasing agents pay that
> price.
>

That's odd, got my ip3000 for $15 less than anywhere else I checked AND
shipped to my door.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:33:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D 2keo3$pv$2@news.service.uci.edu...
>> Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
>> payouts...worthless.
>
> With most new inkjet printers easily on sale for <$50 (ie. the price of
> a new set of color + black ink cartridge), why even worry?!?
>
> When it breaks or even runs out of ink, simply toss the old printer (or
> donate), and buy a new one! Can be cheaper than buying a new set of
> cartridges (when the sales have printers going for <$40), and you'll never
> have to worry about breaking the printer!
>
> =)
>
> Heck, I'd just stock up on replacement printers instead of cartridges
> even with sales! (ie. instead of swapping out used for new carts, simply
> swap out old for new printer)

This may make sense if you are always buying the bottom of the line models.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:05:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrotenews:D 2keo3$pv$2@news.service.uci.edu:

>> Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
>> payouts...worthless.
>
> With most new inkjet printers easily on sale for <$50 (ie. the price
> of a new set of color + black ink cartridge), why even worry?!?
>
> When it breaks or even runs out of ink, simply toss the old printer
> (or donate), and buy a new one! Can be cheaper than buying a new set of
> cartridges (when the sales have printers going for <$40), and you'll
> never have to worry about breaking the printer!
>
> =)
>
> Heck, I'd just stock up on replacement printers instead of cartridges
> even with sales! (ie. instead of swapping out used for new carts,
> simply swap out old for new printer)
>

Eyup.

I've got a handful of Canon carts here from printers people just threw
away, and I refilled them and if I get low on my printing, I just pop open
the lid and walla! Fresh carts for me! Pennies to refill.

My big question is, can I use the BJ6 blk cart (pigment) in my iP3000 BJ3
blk (dye) slot and print with that instead?

The iP4000 has a seperate cart slot for both.
The iP3000 is almost the exact same printer, but only a slot for one blk
BJ3 cart.

--
---Mapanari---
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:05:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Mapanari" <whosthat@anonmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962DA3A7349D1mapi@216.168.3.64...
> David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrotenews:D 2keo3$pv$2@news.service.uci.edu:
>
>>> Yah, that's like battery and tire warrenties or class action suits
>>> payouts...worthless.
>>
>> With most new inkjet printers easily on sale for <$50 (ie. the price
>> of a new set of color + black ink cartridge), why even worry?!?
>>
>> When it breaks or even runs out of ink, simply toss the old printer
>> (or donate), and buy a new one! Can be cheaper than buying a new set of
>> cartridges (when the sales have printers going for <$40), and you'll
>> never have to worry about breaking the printer!
>>
>> =)
>>
>> Heck, I'd just stock up on replacement printers instead of cartridges
>> even with sales! (ie. instead of swapping out used for new carts,
>> simply swap out old for new printer)
>>
>
> Eyup.
>
> I've got a handful of Canon carts here from printers people just threw
> away, and I refilled them and if I get low on my printing, I just pop open
> the lid and walla! Fresh carts for me! Pennies to refill.
>

eyaup, then when the printhead clogs you run to the forum and slam the
printer manufacture because the printer you pumped 3rd party ink through
clogged.


> My big question is, can I use the BJ6 blk cart (pigment) in my iP3000 BJ3
> blk (dye) slot and print with that instead?
>

Sure why not, after all if it dies you can just toss it away and buy another
printer for less than the ink right?

> The iP4000 has a seperate cart slot for both.
> The iP3000 is almost the exact same printer, but only a slot for one blk
> BJ3 cart.
>

And that statement is why you should avoid giving advice here.
!