Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon printhead is dead

Tags:
  • Printers
  • Canon
  • Peripherals
Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
October 29, 2004 11:14:35 PM

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

For those following the printhead issues...

It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.

So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.

I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.

More about : canon printhead dead

October 31, 2004 1:44:13 AM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:rb6dnYHL_KpGUx_cRVn-ig@golden.net...
>
> For those following the printhead issues...
>
> It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
> laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
> and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>
> So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>
> I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
> longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.



Right. My Mercedes had a flat tire today. Mercedes must all be junk. I'm
going back to a Yugo because I never had a flat tire in a Yugo.

Tom
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 1:44:14 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:44:13 GMT, "Tom"
<seaskate32043@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:rb6dnYHL_KpGUx_cRVn-ig@golden.net...
>>
>> For those following the printhead issues...
>>
>> It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
>> laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
>> and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>>
>> So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>>
>> I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
>> longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.
>
>
>
>Right. My Mercedes had a flat tire today. Mercedes must all be junk. I'm
>going back to a Yugo because I never had a flat tire in a Yugo.
>
>Tom
>

That's not really a valid analogy. It's one thing to have a flat, but
the printhead on a printer is a vital and replacement cost is a fairly
large percentage of the printer price.

If your Mercedes had a flat tire on your way off the lot, it probably
wouldn't shake your view of the quality of their cars. However, if I
was driving along a short while after purchase and the engine blew up
or seized up, I'd be more than a little miffed. Of course, if I never
changed the oil or ran the car with the oil pan empty, I'd only have
myself to blame.

My point? Car analogies are pretty useless.
---------------------------------------------

MCheu
Related resources
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 7:23:28 AM

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

I have a new one if interested.
It is Genuine Canon.
If you factor in all of the ink savings from the Canon ink versus an HP in
18 months I am sure you would agree you could still buy a $100.00 U.S
printer and still be ahead.
My I850 is 18 months old and has printed well over 30,000 pages and, knock
on wood , still giving excellent quality.


"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:rb6dnYHL_KpGUx_cRVn-ig@golden.net...
>
> For those following the printhead issues...
>
> It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
> laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
> and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>
> So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>
> I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
> longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 9:06:30 AM

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

Have you attempted any type of head cleaning process with the head out
of the printer?

Art

Bill wrote:

> For those following the printhead issues...
>
> It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
> laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
> and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>
> So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>
> I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
> longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 12:19:44 PM

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

"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75j8o05titr1t09iasgt5m335qkhkhkuql@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:44:13 GMT, "Tom"
> <seaskate32043@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
>>news:rb6dnYHL_KpGUx_cRVn-ig@golden.net...
>>>
>>> For those following the printhead issues...
>>>
>>> It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
>>> laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
>>> and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>>>
>>> So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
>>> longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.
>>
>>
>>
>>Right. My Mercedes had a flat tire today. Mercedes must all be junk.
>>I'm
>>going back to a Yugo because I never had a flat tire in a Yugo.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>
> That's not really a valid analogy. It's one thing to have a flat, but
> the printhead on a printer is a vital and replacement cost is a fairly
> large percentage of the printer price.
>
> If your Mercedes had a flat tire on your way off the lot, it probably
> wouldn't shake your view of the quality of their cars. However, if I
> was driving along a short while after purchase and the engine blew up
> or seized up, I'd be more than a little miffed. Of course, if I never
> changed the oil or ran the car with the oil pan empty, I'd only have
> myself to blame.
>
> My point? Car analogies are pretty useless.

But in comparison, your printer was not 'just off the lot either' and was 4
months out of warranty, so the car analogy works if you read it with an open
mind. Cars are higher ticket price and expected to last much longer than a
$200 printer. But in either case, had you dropped the transmission on your
car 4 months out of warranty, they also are not going to come running to the
rescue, just as Epson, HP, Lexmark or GM, Chevy or Volvo or any other
manufacture for that matter.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 12:21:19 PM

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

"Michael Grey" <greyt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4NZgd.337233$MQ5.90314@attbi_s52...
>I have a new one if interested.
> It is Genuine Canon.
> If you factor in all of the ink savings from the Canon ink versus an HP in
> 18 months I am sure you would agree you could still buy a $100.00 U.S
> printer and still be ahead.
> My I850 is 18 months old and has printed well over 30,000 pages and, knock
> on wood , still giving excellent quality.
>
>
And I thought I did a lot of printing!
30k pages in 18 months is getting your monies worth.
October 31, 2004 2:16:00 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>Have you attempted any type of head cleaning process with the head out
>of the printer?

Yes, but I knew it wasn't just a clog because it stopped working
properly right in the middle of a photo. For about a week prior to this,
it would streak a bit, but nothing dramatic. A regular head cleaning
helped for a while but then on Friday it just suddenly died.

Here in Canada, a new printhead is $60 plus shipping and taxes. That
makes it over $80 for a new one. Not at all economical or reasonably
priced.
October 31, 2004 3:34:30 PM

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

Michael Grey wrote:

>I have a new one if interested.

Thanks for the offer, but I've already bought a new printer.

I considered buying a new printhead, but then was concerned that perhaps
when the printhead suddenly failed, it may have damaged the printer
electronics as well - it wasn't just a clog. Canon told me I couldn't
return the printhead if it didn't work as it may become damaged in my
printer.

So I had to weigh the costs of a new printhead and taking a chance of it
still not working thus wasting that $80. Or simply put that cost into
buying a new printer, not worry about anything, and get a new warranty
as well.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 5:41:16 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:14:35 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>
>For those following the printhead issues...
>
>It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead. It stopped
>laying down ink halfway through a photo today. Half of the black nozzles
>and most of the cyan nozzles are shot and will not work at all.
>
>So much for Canon quality and printhead life expectancy.
>
>I guess I'm going back to HP for my next printer. At least they last
>longer and I won't have any issues with printheads dying.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 7:29:25 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:14:35 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead.

Out of curiosity, how much use did it get in that period?

(For that matter, does heavy usage even affect life?)

J.
October 31, 2004 7:29:26 PM

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

JXStern wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:14:35 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead.
>
>Out of curiosity, how much use did it get in that period?

Roughly 5,000 pages, and I'm guessing on the high side. My friend's i550
printhead died recently too, and he only had a measly 2,500 pages put
through it.

I used refills, and some people are blaming the ink (sounds silly to
me). But my friend used only genuine Canon ink tanks from day one, and
his failed at half the number of pages.

>(For that matter, does heavy usage even affect life?)

Only Canon has that answer, and they're not talking.
:-/
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 10:43:13 PM

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

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:53:04 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>>It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead.
>>
>>Out of curiosity, how much use did it get in that period?
>
>Roughly 5,000 pages, and I'm guessing on the high side. My friend's i550
>printhead died recently too, and he only had a measly 2,500 pages put
>through it.

Hmm. My i550 is about the same age as your i850, I've probably put
well under 2,000 pages through it (pretty much all text and most of
that draft mode, very light duty), and so far, so good.

Major irritation is that I suspect I'm using less than half the ink on
the color cartridges on paper, the rest goes into cleaning cycles, as
I print mostly black with a few color hilites, and sometimes go a few
days between uses. Even on the black, I suspect I'm using less than
80% on actual output.

But at least the Canon cartridges are cheap. A couple of black tanks,
one set of color cartridges per year with an extra yelllow or two, and
if the head lasts me another year, I'll figure that's about the cost
of doing business, until and unless some manufacturer does better.

...

So I should ask, with your i850, was a lot of your 5,000 pages photo?

Frankly, it's fascinating to me that these $100-class printers work at
all! But I'm an old fart, and having quick, quiet color output at
home seems like the next thing to witchcraft to me.

J.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 10:43:14 PM

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

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
news:i6fao0t157fec38vbaed3vusm3eq8hmhjg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:53:04 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>>>It's official...my 16 month old Canon i850 printhead is dead.
>>>
>>>Out of curiosity, how much use did it get in that period?
>>
>>Roughly 5,000 pages, and I'm guessing on the high side. My friend's i550
>>printhead died recently too, and he only had a measly 2,500 pages put
>>through it.
>
> Hmm. My i550 is about the same age as your i850, I've probably put
> well under 2,000 pages through it (pretty much all text and most of
> that draft mode, very light duty), and so far, so good.
>
> Major irritation is that I suspect I'm using less than half the ink on
> the color cartridges on paper, the rest goes into cleaning cycles, as
> I print mostly black with a few color hilites, and sometimes go a few
> days between uses. Even on the black, I suspect I'm using less than
> 80% on actual output.
>

Remember that if you print from a graphic application (Publishing software)
that even black text may use color ink as you often are getting composite
output. I generally change my black 3 to 1 over color tanks on my i560 but
most of my printing is MS Word or Acrobat documents. Also using any paper
setting other than 'Plain Paper' will use composite black causing use of the
color tanks.

> But at least the Canon cartridges are cheap. A couple of black tanks,
> one set of color cartridges per year with an extra yelllow or two, and
> if the head lasts me another year, I'll figure that's about the cost
> of doing business, until and unless some manufacturer does better.
>

Wait a minute!.... I thought all colors ran out at the same time? :0)
October 31, 2004 10:43:14 PM

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

JXStern wrote:

>Major irritation is that I suspect I'm using less than half the ink on
>the color cartridges on paper, the rest goes into cleaning cycles, as
>I print mostly black with a few color hilites, and sometimes go a few
>days between uses. Even on the black, I suspect I'm using less than
>80% on actual output.

Just in case you don't know, if you want to make sure you're using black
ink only for text, just tick the greyscale box in the printer driver. It
will not use any colour at all.

>So I should ask, with your i850, was a lot of your 5,000 pages photo?

About one quarter were photos.

>Frankly, it's fascinating to me that these $100-class printers work at
>all! But I'm an old fart, and having quick, quiet color output at
>home seems like the next thing to witchcraft to me.

It is witchcraft...didn't you know? On the back every printer is a
serial number, and it ALWAYS has 666 in there.
:) 
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 12:10:51 AM

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

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:19:33 -0500, "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote:
>Remember that if you print from a graphic application (Publishing software)
>that even black text may use color ink as you often are getting composite
>output.

Yah, when I switched to XP, my HP printer became useless because even
printing black text from Word it was doing that even for text, it
totally forgot it had black ink, and HP (nor Microsoft) didn't want to
fix the driver, tho it was probably a one-line fix and the printer was
barely a year old. Bastids. Um, 722C.

> I generally change my black 3 to 1 over color tanks on my i560 but
>most of my printing is MS Word or Acrobat documents. Also using any paper
>setting other than 'Plain Paper' will use composite black causing use of the
>color tanks.
>
>> But at least the Canon cartridges are cheap. A couple of black tanks,
>> one set of color cartridges per year with an extra yelllow or two, and
>> if the head lasts me another year, I'll figure that's about the cost
>> of doing business, until and unless some manufacturer does better.
>>
>
>Wait a minute!.... I thought all colors ran out at the same time? :0)

They all waste ink together in cleaning cycles, but I do *use* at
least some of the ink at different rates, too! The magenta and cyan
tanks went out together.

J.
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 11:48:53 AM

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

Thanks for the clarification. It seems a pity that the replaceable head
would be that costly, but in fairness, an Epson head not only costs
about the same (or maybe more), but also requires considerable labor
fees to have it replaced and adjusted.

Art

Bill wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>>Have you attempted any type of head cleaning process with the head out
>>of the printer?
>
>
> Yes, but I knew it wasn't just a clog because it stopped working
> properly right in the middle of a photo. For about a week prior to this,
> it would streak a bit, but nothing dramatic. A regular head cleaning
> helped for a while but then on Friday it just suddenly died.
>
> Here in Canada, a new printhead is $60 plus shipping and taxes. That
> makes it over $80 for a new one. Not at all economical or reasonably
> priced.
November 1, 2004 11:48:54 AM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>Thanks for the clarification. It seems a pity that the replaceable head
>would be that costly, but in fairness, an Epson head not only costs
>about the same (or maybe more), but also requires considerable labor
>fees to have it replaced and adjusted.

That's why I would never even consider an Epson. With replacement heads
from Canon costing as much as %90 of a new printer, I don't consider it
to be convenient nor practical. Imagine the cost of having to do it
twice.

If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
than a page count.

No thanks...I've gone back to HP. No more worries about printhead
failures, alignments, cleanings, or anything...just plug&play printing.
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 11:48:55 AM

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

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:22:20 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
>prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
>upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
>than a page count.

Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
the profit comes from the consumables.

--
Remove preceding and trailing X from username for replies
(Sorry, but I'm SICK of spam...)
November 1, 2004 7:07:51 PM

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

Al Rudderham wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:22:20 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>>If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
>>prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
>>upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
>>than a page count.
>
>Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
>(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
>the profit comes from the consumables.

You're suggesting a semi-permanent printhead is a consumable item?

<rant>
All of the printer companies make a killing from the ink and paper
supplies. There's no reason such a printhead needs to cost $60+ taxes
and shipping, especially if it's user-replaceable. Canon is just
gouging. Even if the printhead did cost that much to make (and I
seriously doubt it), they can easily afford to give them away cheap and
make the money back on consumables.

After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
to be.
</rant>

Whew...I feel better now.
:) 
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 9:34:29 PM

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

"Al Rudderham" <xal.rudderhamx@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:p eaco098jt99ouj1kd3as8mrhhkqkfvnls@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:22:20 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>>If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
>>prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
>>upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
>>than a page count.
>
> Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
> (especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
> the profit comes from the consumables.
>
> --

While you are partially right (the printers are sold at little or no
profit), the printhead is not a 'consumable' in this model or any current
Canon models for that matter. In fact, the biggest chuck of R&D expense now
goes into printhead and ink development. So while the OP may consider $40 a
'reasonable' price, I guess that is because they are not forking out the
millions for R&D.
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 9:57:00 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:CfOdnXZV988pOBvcRVn-2Q@golden.net...
> Al Rudderham wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:22:20 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>
>>>If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
>>>prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
>>>upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
>>>than a page count.
>>
>>Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
>>(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
>>the profit comes from the consumables.
>
> You're suggesting a semi-permanent printhead is a consumable item?
>
> <rant>
> All of the printer companies make a killing from the ink and paper
> supplies. There's no reason such a printhead needs to cost $60+ taxes
> and shipping, especially if it's user-replaceable. Canon is just
> gouging. Even if the printhead did cost that much to make (and I
> seriously doubt it), they can easily afford to give them away cheap and
> make the money back on consumables.
>

Sure glad you started this part with "<rant>".

With a majority of the cost of R&D going to ink and printhead development
and covering packaging, marketing, warranty (yes this is built into a
products cost), and more, printer manufactures hardly gouge in their
pricing. I would say this is especially true with Canon due to the fact that
they also cover their printhead under both the original and 2 year extended
warranties.


> After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
> with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
> larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
> to be.
> </rant>

The number of patents they hold (#2 in the world) and the number of those
patents that HP and others license from them would say differently as would
several industry and consumer surveys.
November 1, 2004 10:58:40 PM

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

PC Medic wrote:

>With a majority of the cost of R&D going to ink and printhead development

That's fine...but it's all paid for in the consumables, likely paper
products alone. They're certainly not losing anything.

>Sure glad you started this part with "<rant>".

Perhaps I shouldn't have. The rant was a warning to those who take the
post as excessively hostile. But the intent of the content is still
there.

>and covering packaging, marketing, warranty (yes this is built into a
>products cost), and more, printer manufactures hardly gouge in their
>pricing. I would say this is especially true with Canon due to the fact that
>they also cover their printhead under both the original and 2 year extended
>warranties.

The gouging is mainly in regards to consumables. In this regard, Canon
has pretty much changed their view of consumable items, and a printhead
is now part of those items. They are charging prices more inline with
consumables than as a parts replacement commodity.

As I said before, if they charged a reasonable price (and where upfront
about the life expectancy), I'd be using my Canon i850 today. They can
easily recoup the measly $10-20 they lose selling the printhead at half
the current price from the first couple of ink tanks they sell the same
day.

>> After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
>> with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
>> larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
>> to be.
>> </rant>
>
>The number of patents they hold (#2 in the world) and the number of those
>patents that HP and others license from them would say differently as would
>several industry and consumer surveys.

And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
licenses than Canon.

Number of patents and size of litigation departments doesn't necessarily
mean "best", just look at Bose and the junk they sell. It's what you can
do with the technology that makes a company stand out.
:-/
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 9:45:27 AM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:kdGdnW4wlt1dRhvcRVn-rQ@golden.net...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>>With a majority of the cost of R&D going to ink and printhead development
>
> That's fine...but it's all paid for in the consumables, likely paper
> products alone. They're certainly not losing anything.
>

You are correct there, they are not losing anything because they do not use
the practice which was proposed of pricing to take a loss.

>>Sure glad you started this part with "<rant>".
>
> Perhaps I shouldn't have. The rant was a warning to those who take the
> post as excessively hostile. But the intent of the content is still
> there.
>
>>and covering packaging, marketing, warranty (yes this is built into a
>>products cost), and more, printer manufactures hardly gouge in their
>>pricing. I would say this is especially true with Canon due to the fact
>>that
>>they also cover their printhead under both the original and 2 year
>>extended
>>warranties.
>
> The gouging is mainly in regards to consumables. In this regard, Canon
> has pretty much changed their view of consumable items, and a printhead
> is now part of those items. They are charging prices more inline with
> consumables than as a parts replacement commodity.
>

And you are basing this on?


> As I said before, if they charged a reasonable price (and where upfront
> about the life expectancy), I'd be using my Canon i850 today. They can
> easily recoup the measly $10-20 they lose selling the printhead at half
> the current price from the first couple of ink tanks they sell the same
> day.
>

They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that price.


>>> After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
>>> with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
>>> larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
>>> to be.
>>> </rant>
>>
>>The number of patents they hold (#2 in the world) and the number of those
>>patents that HP and others license from them would say differently as
>>would
>>several industry and consumer surveys.
>
> And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
> licenses than Canon.
>

This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so much
competition from Canon, Epson etc.

> Number of patents and size of litigation departments doesn't necessarily
> mean "best", just look at Bose and the junk they sell. It's what you can
> do with the technology that makes a company stand out.
> :-/

I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 12:07:04 PM

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

> Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
> (especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
> the profit comes from the consumables.
>

This may well be true, but then the question still remains that if a
person burns out the head (likely from a lot of use), then they are also
going through a lot of ink. Since the manufacturer cannot ever really
know if the user is using OEM or 3rd party inks, wouldn't it make sense
for the manufacturer to sell the head as a "lost leader", just like the
printer itself, and sell even more ink, rather than have the client:

1) Have a printer without a head, meaning they aren't using any ink

2) Have a client replace the printer with another brand

3) Have the client bad mouth the product in a public newsgroup and
elsewhere.


Makes no sense to me.

Art

Al Rudderham wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:22:20 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>
>>If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
>>prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
>>upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
>>than a page count.
>
>
> Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
> (especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
> the profit comes from the consumables.
>
November 2, 2004 9:17:54 PM

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

PC Medic wrote:

>They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
>then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
>show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that price.

That's a load of horse manure.

Everyone knows the profit is in the consumables. They could give the
printers away for free and still make a huge profit. So giving away the
printheads, or selling them at reduced prices sure isn't going to hurt
them.

But pissing off a customer, well...

>> And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
>> licenses than Canon.
>
>This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so much
>competition from Canon, Epson etc.

Advertising and marketing is what makes sales.

I bought the changing "Canon line" about the printheads being able to
last the life of the printer. That was my mistake. Canon was unwilling
to help alleviate my concerns, and that was their mistake.

As for print quality, it's not just my opinion. I've shown the prints to
several friends in side by side comparisons to my photos I made with the
i850 only a few weeks ago. In every single case, they like the HP print
better. And that's with just the included four colours. With the
optional photo cartridge using six colours, the results are even better.

Granted, the HP 6540 is relatively new and I'm comparing it to a printer
that is almost two years old in design. Two years is a long time in this
industry. But having said that, I've compared four colour prints from a
Canon iP3000 and it's not quite as good as the HP either.

>I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
>converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
>winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
>experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.

I consider myself fairly objective...I should, since I work in a field
that requires objectivity.

I liked the results from the i850. It was fast, reasonably quiet, in
fact I raved about its performance. I was also willing to buy a new
printhead as well, but Canon shot that down by being unhelpful and
unwilling to even TRY to keep me a customer - refusing to accept a
printhead for return was too much. That's the main reason why I'm upset
with Canon.
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 10:06:28 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:xIKdnbFwr8E_iBXcRVn-vw@golden.net...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>>They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
>>then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
>>show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that
>>price.
>
> That's a load of horse manure.
>
> Everyone knows the profit is in the consumables. They could give the
> printers away for free and still make a huge profit. So giving away the
> printheads, or selling them at reduced prices sure isn't going to hurt
> them.
>

You neglect to grasp that the printhead (ii Canon printers) is NOT a
consumable and claiming otherwise for the sake of trying to make your point
does not change that.

> But pissing off a customer, well...
>

Only those that could probably never be made happy any way.

>>> And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
>>> licenses than Canon.
>>
>>This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so
>>much
>>competition from Canon, Epson etc.
>
> Advertising and marketing is what makes sales.
>
> I bought the changing "Canon line" about the printheads being able to
> last the life of the printer. That was my mistake. Canon was unwilling
> to help alleviate my concerns, and that was their mistake.
>

Your case is the exception and not the rule AND you were admittedly out of
warranty. Could they from a customer service stand taken care of your WELL
OUT OF WARRANTY product, probably, were they obligated to? NO...will HP
should you have a similar issue...probably not. Then you can get yourself an
Epson...then a Lexmark...then a .......

> As for print quality, it's not just my opinion. I've shown the prints to
> several friends in side by side comparisons to my photos I made with the
> i850 only a few weeks ago. In every single case, they like the HP print
> better. And that's with just the included four colours. With the
> optional photo cartridge using six colours, the results are even better.
>

Of course they did.
I am also sure many have shown their Canon, Lexmark and other male photos to
friends that were equally impressed with their choice. Fact remains it is
YOUR opinion and that I and thousands of others would disagree.

> Granted, the HP 6540 is relatively new and I'm comparing it to a printer
> that is almost two years old in design. Two years is a long time in this
> industry. But having said that, I've compared four colour prints from a
> Canon iP3000 and it's not quite as good as the HP either.
>

I'm sure in your eyes it is not

>>I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
>>converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
>>winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
>>experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.
>
> I consider myself fairly objective...I should, since I work in a field
> that requires objectivity.
>

That Scary (IMHO)

> I liked the results from the i850. It was fast, reasonably quiet, in
> fact I raved about its performance. I was also willing to buy a new
> printhead as well, but Canon shot that down by being unhelpful and
> unwilling to even TRY to keep me a customer - refusing to accept a
> printhead for return was too much. That's the main reason why I'm upset
> with Canon.

Were you in warranty? Nope!
If your precious new HP breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or
repair it at no cost? ....probably not!
If your car dies 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair it at
no cost? ....probably not!
If your fridge breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
it at no cost? ....probably not!
If your lawnmower quits 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
it at no cost? ....probably not!

Are you beginning to see a trend her? ........ probably not!
November 3, 2004 12:03:57 AM

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

PC Medic wrote:

>Are you beginning to see a trend her?

Yes...but my manners prevent me from typing it out.
Anonymous
November 3, 2004 1:58:43 PM

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

OK, let's see if I have this correct...

You are stating that the head is not a consumable in Canon printers,
meaning, I suspect, that it is considered part of the durable hardware.

Yet, unlike the rest of the printer, the head has a limited lifespan
which is considerably shorter than the rest of the printer, and "oddly"
the part is one of the few "user serviceable" parts (sort of like Canon
knew it would fail before the rest of the printer).

You keep on harping about warranty. I'm sorry but few of us buy a
product assuming the item will fail as soon as the warranty ends.
I drive a 25 year old car. It's been out of warranty for at least 20 of
those years, and it still works. None of the parts I've put into it
cost anywhere near the original cost of the car, in fact, considerably less.

I also have a number of Epson printers that are between 5 and 9 years
old, and they still work. They came with a one or two year warranty,
depending upon the model.

If the head on Canon printers is failing "prematurely" perhaps Canon
needs to rewrite their warranty. Perhaps they need to give the head a
special and longer warranty, or perhaps you can understand why someone
who had the head of his printer fail, which costs a large percentage of
the new value of the printer, only a few months after the warranty
expired, might be just a bit annoyed with the product and company, and
may choose to avoid the product in the future.

And should the problem become endemic, regardless of if it occurs after
the one year warranty, it may only be through the pressure of people who
feel shortchanged to make Canon respond to "do the right thing".

Now, I am not stating that Canon heads will widely fail prematurely, but
stating that because they have failed outside of the warranty makes it
OK, doesn't resolve a potential problem. If every brand XYZ car engine
failed within 6 years (a year out of warranty, let's say, for instance)
you better believe a lot of people would stay far away from them. In
fact, one brand which had a bad record for their build, redesigned their
cars and extended their warranties from bumper to bumper on their cars
to try to regain trust.

You should also be aware that consumer law varies in different states
and countries regarding "sale of goods" legislation. You've probably
noticed that every warranty states something like "Your rights may
differ" or "Your state/country may not allow for these exceptions or
exclusions". What that means is that some places legislate that the
warranty is not the be all - end all legal document. For instance, in
my province in Canada, the sale of goods act states that a product
should remain functional for the purpose for which it was manufactured
for a "reasonable time period" that an average person would expect,
based upon the value of the investment and what is typical for similar
products made by other manufacturers. In England, something that could
be classified as a manufacturer's design defect may have an extension of
the warranty required.

So, this is not a cut and dry situation, as much as you may wish it to
be so.

Art



PC Medic wrote:

> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:xIKdnbFwr8E_iBXcRVn-vw@golden.net...
>
>>PC Medic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
>>>then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
>>>show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that
>>>price.
>>
>>That's a load of horse manure.
>>
>>Everyone knows the profit is in the consumables. They could give the
>>printers away for free and still make a huge profit. So giving away the
>>printheads, or selling them at reduced prices sure isn't going to hurt
>>them.
>>
>
>
> You neglect to grasp that the printhead (ii Canon printers) is NOT a
> consumable and claiming otherwise for the sake of trying to make your point
> does not change that.
>
>
>>But pissing off a customer, well...
>>
>
>
> Only those that could probably never be made happy any way.
>
>
>>>>And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
>>>>licenses than Canon.
>>>
>>>This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so
>>>much
>>>competition from Canon, Epson etc.
>>
>>Advertising and marketing is what makes sales.
>>
>>I bought the changing "Canon line" about the printheads being able to
>>last the life of the printer. That was my mistake. Canon was unwilling
>>to help alleviate my concerns, and that was their mistake.
>>
>
>
> Your case is the exception and not the rule AND you were admittedly out of
> warranty. Could they from a customer service stand taken care of your WELL
> OUT OF WARRANTY product, probably, were they obligated to? NO...will HP
> should you have a similar issue...probably not. Then you can get yourself an
> Epson...then a Lexmark...then a .......
>
>
>>As for print quality, it's not just my opinion. I've shown the prints to
>>several friends in side by side comparisons to my photos I made with the
>>i850 only a few weeks ago. In every single case, they like the HP print
>>better. And that's with just the included four colours. With the
>>optional photo cartridge using six colours, the results are even better.
>>
>
>
> Of course they did.
> I am also sure many have shown their Canon, Lexmark and other male photos to
> friends that were equally impressed with their choice. Fact remains it is
> YOUR opinion and that I and thousands of others would disagree.
>
>
>>Granted, the HP 6540 is relatively new and I'm comparing it to a printer
>>that is almost two years old in design. Two years is a long time in this
>>industry. But having said that, I've compared four colour prints from a
>>Canon iP3000 and it's not quite as good as the HP either.
>>
>
>
> I'm sure in your eyes it is not
>
>
>>>I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
>>>converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
>>>winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
>>>experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.
>>
>>I consider myself fairly objective...I should, since I work in a field
>>that requires objectivity.
>>
>
>
> That Scary (IMHO)
>
>
>>I liked the results from the i850. It was fast, reasonably quiet, in
>>fact I raved about its performance. I was also willing to buy a new
>>printhead as well, but Canon shot that down by being unhelpful and
>>unwilling to even TRY to keep me a customer - refusing to accept a
>>printhead for return was too much. That's the main reason why I'm upset
>>with Canon.
>
>
> Were you in warranty? Nope!
> If your precious new HP breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or
> repair it at no cost? ....probably not!
> If your car dies 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair it at
> no cost? ....probably not!
> If your fridge breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
> it at no cost? ....probably not!
> If your lawnmower quits 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
> it at no cost? ....probably not!
>
> Are you beginning to see a trend her? ........ probably not!
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 1:55:26 PM

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

PC Medic wrote:


>
>>You should also be aware that consumer law varies in different states and
>>countries regarding "sale of goods" legislation. You've probably noticed
>>that every warranty states something like "Your rights may differ" or
>>"Your state/country may not allow for these exceptions or exclusions".
>>What that means is that some places legislate that the warranty is not the
>>be all - end all legal document. For instance, in my province in Canada,
>>the sale of goods act states that a product should remain functional for
>>the purpose for which it was manufactured for a "reasonable time period"
>>that an average person would expect, based upon the value of the
>>investment and what is typical for similar products made by other
>>manufacturers. In England, something that could be classified as a
>>manufacturer's design defect may have an extension of the warranty
>>required.
>>
>>So, this is not a cut and dry situation, as much as you may wish it to be
>>so.
>
>
> Very cut and dry and I am well aware of warranty regulation from state to
> state and country to country. Think "frequency" and "intent" and you may
> realize it is also not quite the wide spread or complex legal issue that you
> would like to think it is.
>

In my province, it is irrelevant how many units fail or the intent of
the manufacturer. The retailer is legally responsible, as the agent of
the sale. He can then go chase the distributor or manufacturer for
reimbursement. If I have a product which fails out of warranty, and it
is an unreasonably short lifespan for the relative value of the product,
I can ask the retailer to cover the cost of repair or replacement and if
the retailer refuses, I can sue and will likely win.

I have no idea how commonplace the head failure is on Canon's newer
printers, but there were some warnings that the lifespan was limited
when they first came out. I think the head should be rated in terms of
number of one color ink cartridges emptied, which is a pretty good
indication of use. I know HP has/had a series of printers which had a
"semi-permanent" head it it, and I saw the heads sold in store in the
same section as the ink cartridges. The heads were a bit more costly,
as I recall, than the ink cartridges. I think they required replacement
about every 10 ink cartridges, or something along those lines.

Art



>
!