A caution on Canon printers

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.
75 answers Last reply
More about caution canon printers
  1. 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.
  2. 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
    >
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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_Assemblies.html
    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
  7. 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_Assemblies.html
    > 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 !!
  8. 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


    >
    >
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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".
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
    >
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
    > >
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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]
  31. 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
    ?
  32. 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
    > ?
    >
    >
    >
  33. 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 ?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
  34. 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 ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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---
  38. 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---
  39. 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---
  40. 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....
    >
    >
    >
    >
  41. 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)
  42. 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---
  43. 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---
    >
    >
    >
  44. 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---
    >
  45. 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!
  46. 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.
  47. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
    news:d2keo3$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.
  48. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrotenews:d2keo3$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---
  49. 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:d2keo3$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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Peripherals