Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cost of toner

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:14:20 AM

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

Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell printers
for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me for the
toner...

More about : cost toner

December 24, 2004 7:14:21 AM

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

Jim P wrote:
> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell printers
> for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me for the
> toner...
>
>

When you get old enough to shave, you're REALLY gonna be upset. ;-)

mike
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:14:21 AM

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

"Jim P" <ionion2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wIMyd.550307$Pl.119260@pd7tw1no...
> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
> for the toner...


really toner is not that much?? or shouldnt be that much maybe $0.03/page?!
at least it's cheaper than inkjets :-P
Related resources
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:14:22 AM

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

>
> When you get old enough to shave, you're REALLY gonna be upset. ;-)
>
> mike
>

lol
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 11:37:51 AM

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

Jim P wrote:
> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell printers
> for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me for the
> toner...
>
>

Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II
cost $2700.

Would that make you feel better?

Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.

They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:17:35 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:37:51 -0600, jbuch <jbuch@CUTHERErevealed.net>
wrote:

>Jim P wrote:
>> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell printers
>> for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me for the
>> toner...
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II
>cost $2700.
>
>Would that make you feel better?
>
>Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.
>
>They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?

You capitalist pig!

PJ
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:45:49 PM

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

Kind of like the toy industry, and the cost of batteries!

Bill Crocker


"Jim P" <ionion2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wIMyd.550307$Pl.119260@pd7tw1no...
> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
> for the toner...
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:22:44 PM

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

jbuch wrote:
> Jim P wrote:
>
>> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
>> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging
>> me for the toner...
>>
>
> Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II
> cost $2700.
>
> Would that make you feel better?
>
> Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.
>
> They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?
>
>
>
I may be dating myself here, but a girl I used to get to print resumes
for me in my pre-pc days had an IBM daisy wheel quiet writer, I think I
recall her telling me she paid over C$2000 for.... But it was nice
output I'll have to say!
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:10:09 PM

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

"Jim P" wrote
> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
> for the toner...

When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink and
toner.

Regards -JW
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:10:10 PM

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

"John Wright" <notprovided@something.com> wrote in message
news:41cbb2c3$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
> information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
> company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink and
> toner.

It is hardly inside information - HP's financials post each quarter the revenue
and profit by segment of the company. See:
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2.... In the
most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had $6.5B of revenue, out
of a company overall of $21.1B.

- Bob Headrick
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 8:38:30 PM

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

You obviously hold some HP stocks :-)

"jbuch" <jbuch@CUTHERErevealed.net> wrote in message
news:cqh9g302ics@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Jim P wrote:
>> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
>> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
>> for the toner...
>
> Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II cost
> $2700.
>
> Would that make you feel better?
>
> Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.
>
> They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:56:39 AM

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

"Bob Headrick" wrote
>
> "John Wright" wrote
>> When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
>> information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
>> company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink
>> and toner.
>
> It is hardly inside information ... See:
> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2.... In
> the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had $6.5B of
> revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B.

Your figures are right, but a couple of points to note here -
1. You are talking revenue, I am talking profits. HP gets a lot of revenue
in areas where they make little profit, or even loss.
2. The figures published for their Printing & Imaging division do not show
the figures for ink/toner separately from printers. You can't tell from the
figures that they are at best breaking even on printers (perhaps even making
a loss) but make a killing on ink/toner (again, looking at profits not
revenue). This information is not published - this is where the inside
information came in.

Merry Christmas!!

Regards - JW
December 25, 2004 3:13:41 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:14:20 GMT, "Jim P" <ionion2001@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell printers
>for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me for the
>toner...

So don't buy it from the printer company. There are lots of places
that refurbish and refill toner carts, and sell them for generally
less than half the original price. Some make clone carts. Quality
varies, so ask around local companies that have used them. I've hardly
ever used an original HP cart, unless someone else was paying for it,
for the past 12 years.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:21:03 PM

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

jbuch wrote:

> Jim P wrote:
>
>> Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
>> printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging
>> me for the toner...
>>
>
> Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II
> cost $2700.
>

If it meant the machine was designed to last (and today, even upgrade),
the consumables were at reasonable costs which were more like the cost
plus a reasonable profit margin, and parts were made available, customer
service was more than a phrase, and overall it reduced the desire of the
consumer to replace the whole printer every time they needed a toner or
ink refill, then yes, perhaps we should.

> Would that make you feel better?
>

I would.


> Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.
>


I'm gonna quote someone here, tell me if you recognize it:

> I don't see how anybody coulld make a living repairing cheap
electrical appliances.
>
> You buy a new coffeemaker for $30. It breaks, and you get charged
$10.00 for the replacement heating element and $20 to install it. So,
for the consumer, it doesn't make sense to have a small appliances
repair system, except for a $200 expensive appliance or a ship it
back for a new one type of warranty service.
>
> The bulk of the printers today in the hands of consumers are "cheap".
>
> There are only a few shoe repair shops around these days, much less
than in the past. It is too expensive to repair most inexpensive shoes.
But, there are expensive shoes where repair makes good sense. $30 shoes
resoled for $15 vs $150 shoes resoled for $25 is a whole different
ball game.
>
> The piezoelectric print heads are alleged to cost more than the
thermal/bubblejet heads to produce.
>
> So, the profits on the headless full inktank cartridge are higher
than the profits on the inktank with built in thermal/bubblejet printing
head.
>
> I really don't see the viability of expecting to make a living
repairing "Cheap" products.
>
> Jim
>

Now, you see, if the printers cost let's just say $800, since they now
sell for under $100 here in Canada, as maybe they should, and the toner
refills cost $40, rather than $150, people would keep their printers and
pay a couple hundred for a repair, keeping the repairman in business,
and they wouldn't want to chuck the printer every time it needed a new
toner fill, a slight repair, or a new one with a new bell or whistle
came out.

Not only that, but the inhabitants of the whole planet might benefit.
How much longer to you really think we can go down this wasteful road
before it is blocked by someone else's garbage in front of us?


> They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?
>

They already do on many products. We have become so craven to "the new
and best, we refuse to buy a printer that has been on the shelf over 6
months, so they are dumped below cost. In fact, many of the NEW
printers are sold below cost to try to get the "ink I.V. drip" started.

Lexmark lives on this concept. I almost never see Lexmark printers for
SALE in Canada, by far the large majority are "given away" with purchase
of just about anything computer related.

If this keeps up, you'll get one free with the purchased of a blank DVD.

Art
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:33:24 PM

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

The funny thing about that is (and I have held HP stock for about 10
years) when the company was indeed selling printers for $2700 the stock
never did better! It was splitting and recovering full value per share
every 6 months for a while there.

After all those years, I finally sold all my HP holdings a few days ago.
Looking over all those wonderful splits and spin-offs, I discovered,
much to my horror, that the profit I made, as a result of the massive
shrinkage of both the HP stock value and that of the spin offs, left me
with minimal profit, where years ago, the profits I had on paper were in
the hundreds of percent!

HP was one of the companies responsible for this new business model in
printers and the like (taken from the razor and instant camera
businesses, I presume) and they are now stuck with it, as it has become
a Pandora's box of which there is no going back.

I wish them luck, but, I'm done as an owner of their equity, and quite
likely, also of their product lines, until something does change (like
their CEO?)...

None of this is a reflection on some of their very dedicated past and
current employees, whom, I believe were/are trying to do their jobs
under the most difficult of circumstances.

Art

Jim P wrote:

> You obviously hold some HP stocks :-)
>
> "jbuch" <jbuch@CUTHERErevealed.net> wrote in message
> news:cqh9g302ics@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Jim P wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
>>>printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
>>>for the toner...
>>
>>Perhaps we should go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when a Laserjet II cost
>>$2700.
>>
>>Would that make you feel better?
>>
>>Don't you just hate to see companies make money to stay in business.
>>
>>They should lose money so as to give the customer the best bargain?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:38:07 PM

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

Except the toy companies do not own the battery companies or vice versa,
in fact, in most cases, they have to buy the batteries they put into the
original packaging from other companies.

It would be different if the toy companies (even the adult toy companies
(like Apple, Sony, etc) has a stake in battery technology, but most do not.

In this case, the printer companies own much of the toner and ink
related business either directly or through subcontract.

Yes, there are many independent ink manufacturers, it's true, but the
largest chunk of the business by dollar is still going to the printer
companies.

Art

Bill Crocker wrote:

> Kind of like the toy industry, and the cost of batteries!
>
> Bill Crocker
>
>
> "Jim P" <ionion2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wIMyd.550307$Pl.119260@pd7tw1no...
>
>>Anybody else outraged about the cost of toner? These companies sell
>>printers for nothing, and after that they make tons of money charging me
>>for the toner...
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:41:52 PM

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

I've seen the figures broken down. HP made almost ALL their profits on
consumables in the last several year. That includes ink, toner, paper,
etc. They are not alone in the printer world.

Art

John Wright wrote:

> "Bob Headrick" wrote
>
>>"John Wright" wrote
>>
>>>When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
>>>information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
>>>company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink
>>>and toner.
>>
>>It is hardly inside information ... See:
>>http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2.... In
>>the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had $6.5B of
>>revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B.
>
>
> Your figures are right, but a couple of points to note here -
> 1. You are talking revenue, I am talking profits. HP gets a lot of revenue
> in areas where they make little profit, or even loss.
> 2. The figures published for their Printing & Imaging division do not show
> the figures for ink/toner separately from printers. You can't tell from the
> figures that they are at best breaking even on printers (perhaps even making
> a loss) but make a killing on ink/toner (again, looking at profits not
> revenue). This information is not published - this is where the inside
> information came in.
>
> Merry Christmas!!
>
> Regards - JW
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 7:29:36 PM

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

"Arthur Entlich" wrote
> After all those years, I finally sold all my HP holdings a few days ago.

Also Agilent? They were another disaster.

- JW
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 7:29:37 PM

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

Yes, I sold them as well, which I was a bit more sad about. Walter
Hewlett, when he was voted out of the board from HP, moved to Agilent,
and I've always like him.

Apparently, an honest man with integrity and a heart, an intelligent,
cultured man. All the things that Carly Fiorina lambasted him for
being. Oh well, time to find some new and truly innovative companies to
invest in, I guess. I mean, how much longer can a company live on
buying up computer showroom space to corner the market while only making
reasonable profits on very outlandishly priced ink and toner.

It is all too bad. HP had so much potential. I hope some of the many
people who have left, either of their own accord, or by force, come back
together and start up something new.

Art

John Wright wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" wrote
>
>>After all those years, I finally sold all my HP holdings a few days ago.
>
>
> Also Agilent? They were another disaster.
>
> - JW
>
>
>
December 26, 2004 7:29:38 PM

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:03:02 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:

>Yes, I sold them as well, which I was a bit more sad about. Walter
>Hewlett, when he was voted out of the board from HP, moved to Agilent,
>and I've always like him.

- I told you so
- Definitely?
- Yes
- Are you sure?
- Because postings are reversed and one doesn't know what you are on about
- Why is top posting such a pain in the butt?
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:26:52 PM

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

Pete,

You appear to be one of the major trolls here. If you have nothing of
value to say (and indeed looking over your past number of posts, I'd say
that was the case).

You seem to be good with useless one liners, insulting and sometimes
profane comments, and basically getting on about your ridiculous "top
posting" complaint.

It's getting tedious and truly it's insipid. Go find a newsgroup
dedicated to list netequette and I'm sure you'll discover a whole group
of telephone handset sanitizers to collect leaves with. (with apologies
to the late, great Douglas Adams).

Art

pete wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:03:02 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, I sold them as well, which I was a bit more sad about. Walter
>>Hewlett, when he was voted out of the board from HP, moved to Agilent,
>>and I've always like him.
>
>
> - I told you so
> - Definitely?
> - Yes
> - Are you sure?
> - Because postings are reversed and one doesn't know what you are on about
> - Why is top posting such a pain in the butt?
December 28, 2004 8:52:45 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:


> In the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had $6.5B of
> revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B.

> See:
> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2....


Thanks so much for this information, Mr Headrick! Unfortunately, at the
present time, my financial analysis is not at this level and I don't worry too
much how and where HP makes its money, but how I will get the best printer for
my money.

So, let's just compare two printers, the HP 1012 and the Brother HL-5140:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/fr/un/WF06a/18972-236...
http://solutions.brother.com/hl5140_all/en_us/spec.html

The Brother HL-5140, after a $50 coupon rebate, comes down to $300 (CAN) at
Staples, the HP 1012, after a $110 instant rebate, is $190. So the 1012 is
much cheaper. Or is it?

The 1012 comes with a 1,000 pages half empty cartridge, the HL-5140 with a
full 3,500 pages cartridge. So you have to pay 2,500 pages extra for the 1012
to get even. At $90 / 2000 pages cartridge(1), that's $90 * 1.25 = $112.50.
$190 + 112.50 = 302.50$. So, they're the same price. Or are they?

(1)
<http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/cat_class.asp?CatIds=...;

The 1012 is host based not networkable, the HL-5140 is networkable. The 1012
has 8 megs unexpandable memory, the HL-5140 16 megs expandable to 144 in case
you want to network it. The HL-5140 offers full PCL6 support, the 1012
language is not stated.

Linuxprinting says: "language looks like PJL + PCL 6" and "HP LaserJet 1010
works (...) with all raster drivers for the HP LaserJet 1100. Unfortunately,
the new LaserJet 1010/1012/1015 series seems not to be absolutely compatible
with older HP printers or it has a firmware bug. Sometimes it happens that the
printer stops working and reports the error "Unsupported Personality: PCL".

http://linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=HP-Las...

The ML-5140 has a 250 sheets paper tray option, the 1012, none.

Brother offers a 6,700 sheet cartridge for 135$ at Staples, which means each
page comes down to 2¢. Add 1¢ for the drum, there's still no need to make
prints and then go to the photocopy shop.

(First I thought it was a great advantage that all the refurbishing industry
offered guarantee-ruining HP cartridges. Now, I understand why they don't sell
Brother's:) 

The 1012 weights 13 pounds, the ML-5140, 23. When you look at both printers in
the store, the first looks like a flimsy toy, the second one like a sturdy
piece of equipment.

Reviews say that the 1012 has better graphic quality. But I remember I went
for my Canon BJ-300 because quality was better than the Deskjet 500's and
bitterly regreted it. And I don't remember the last time I printed graphics.

My dear Mr Headrick, I'm counting on you to explain why I should get a HP
printer. You know, with La Fiorina manufacturing-a in China, I'm wondering if
it wouldn't be much cheaper to buy directly from a Chinese, Korean or serious
Japanese printer company.

I kinda think their "overhead" is much lower, mainly when the company's in big
trouble. Maybe you've read "Made in Japan" by Akio Morita. He was the
president of Sony and thought jets weren't such a necessity. So, imagine in Korea!

GP
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:28:20 AM

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

GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the
comparison on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to
analyze a purchasing decision.

Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.

Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP.
He does it on his own dime, to try to be helpful to people who have
questions he can answer. Yes, as an HP employee, he knows a bit about
how they work, or knows who to ask to try to find answers for people who
feel they aren't getting the information they require. But he has made
it clear he cannot be an apologist for HP, and he is isn't here
particularly to defend HP. Heck, for all we know, he may agree with
some of the things you are concerned about.

His being here is a plus for everyone on this group, and we should be
more respectful of his willingness to be helpful.

As I see it, he is no different than I in terms of his place in this
newsgroup. I know a fair amount about Epson printers, and printers in
general, but no one sponsors me here. I try to be helpful, and I try to
be fair.

So, I would ask that you recognize Bob Headrick's position here, and not
badger him, because he is not obligated to be here. He is not here at
HP's bequest, and should he choose to leave, quite a few people will
will left with no HP expert here.

Art


GP wrote:

> Bob Headrick wrote:
>
>
> > In the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had
> $6.5B of
> > revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B.
>
>> See: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2....
>
>
>
> Thanks so much for this information, Mr Headrick! Unfortunately, at the
> present time, my financial analysis is not at this level and I don't
> worry too much how and where HP makes its money, but how I will get the
> best printer for my money.
>
> So, let's just compare two printers, the HP 1012 and the Brother HL-5140:
>
> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/fr/un/WF06a/18972-236...
>
> http://solutions.brother.com/hl5140_all/en_us/spec.html
>
> The Brother HL-5140, after a $50 coupon rebate, comes down to $300 (CAN)
> at Staples, the HP 1012, after a $110 instant rebate, is $190. So the
> 1012 is much cheaper. Or is it?
>
> The 1012 comes with a 1,000 pages half empty cartridge, the HL-5140 with
> a full 3,500 pages cartridge. So you have to pay 2,500 pages extra for
> the 1012 to get even. At $90 / 2000 pages cartridge(1), that's $90 *
> 1.25 = $112.50. $190 + 112.50 = 302.50$. So, they're the same price. Or
> are they?
>
> (1)
> <http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/cat_class.asp?CatIds=...;
>
>
> The 1012 is host based not networkable, the HL-5140 is networkable. The
> 1012 has 8 megs unexpandable memory, the HL-5140 16 megs expandable to
> 144 in case you want to network it. The HL-5140 offers full PCL6
> support, the 1012 language is not stated.
>
> Linuxprinting says: "language looks like PJL + PCL 6" and "HP LaserJet
> 1010 works (...) with all raster drivers for the HP LaserJet 1100.
> Unfortunately, the new LaserJet 1010/1012/1015 series seems not to be
> absolutely compatible with older HP printers or it has a firmware bug.
> Sometimes it happens that the printer stops working and reports the
> error "Unsupported Personality: PCL".
>
> http://linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=HP-Las...
>
> The ML-5140 has a 250 sheets paper tray option, the 1012, none.
>
> Brother offers a 6,700 sheet cartridge for 135$ at Staples, which means
> each page comes down to 2¢. Add 1¢ for the drum, there's still no need
> to make prints and then go to the photocopy shop.
>
> (First I thought it was a great advantage that all the refurbishing
> industry offered guarantee-ruining HP cartridges. Now, I understand why
> they don't sell Brother's:) 
>
> The 1012 weights 13 pounds, the ML-5140, 23. When you look at both
> printers in the store, the first looks like a flimsy toy, the second one
> like a sturdy piece of equipment.
>
> Reviews say that the 1012 has better graphic quality. But I remember I
> went for my Canon BJ-300 because quality was better than the Deskjet
> 500's and bitterly regreted it. And I don't remember the last time I
> printed graphics.
>
> My dear Mr Headrick, I'm counting on you to explain why I should get a
> HP printer. You know, with La Fiorina manufacturing-a in China, I'm
> wondering if it wouldn't be much cheaper to buy directly from a Chinese,
> Korean or serious Japanese printer company.
>
> I kinda think their "overhead" is much lower, mainly when the company's
> in big trouble. Maybe you've read "Made in Japan" by Akio Morita. He was
> the president of Sony and thought jets weren't such a necessity. So,
> imagine in Korea!
>
> GP
>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:25:48 AM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the
> comparison on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to
> analyze a purchasing decision.
>
> Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.
>
> Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP.
> He does it on his own dime, to try to be helpful to people who have
> questions he can answer. Yes, as an HP employee, he knows a bit about
> how they work, or knows who to ask to try to find answers for people who
> feel they aren't getting the information they require. But he has made
> it clear he cannot be an apologist for HP, and he is isn't here
> particularly to defend HP. Heck, for all we know, he may agree with
> some of the things you are concerned about.
>
> His being here is a plus for everyone on this group, and we should be
> more respectful of his willingness to be helpful.
>
> As I see it, he is no different than I in terms of his place in this
> newsgroup. I know a fair amount about Epson printers, and printers in
> general, but no one sponsors me here. I try to be helpful, and I try to
> be fair.
>
> So, I would ask that you recognize Bob Headrick's position here, and not
> badger him, because he is not obligated to be here. He is not here at
> HP's bequest, and should he choose to leave, quite a few people will
> will left with no HP expert here.
>
> Art
>
Ain't it the truth!

This group is indeed fortunate to have Bob as a contributor. Bob is
kind and smart enough to help those with questions & problems with HP
printers but he is also smart enough to NOT bite the hand that feeds
him or jump on those that do have a bone to pick with HP.

Thanks Bob.

Mickey
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 3:35:25 PM

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

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:25:48 -0800, Mickey <mickey@webster.com> wrote:

>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>> GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the
>> comparison on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to
>> analyze a purchasing decision.
>>
>> Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.
>>
>> Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP.
>> He does it on his own dime, to try to be helpful to people who have
>> questions he can answer. Yes, as an HP employee, he knows a bit about
>> how they work, or knows who to ask to try to find answers for people who
>> feel they aren't getting the information they require. But he has made
>> it clear he cannot be an apologist for HP, and he is isn't here
>> particularly to defend HP. Heck, for all we know, he may agree with
>> some of the things you are concerned about.
>>
>> His being here is a plus for everyone on this group, and we should be
>> more respectful of his willingness to be helpful.
>>
>> As I see it, he is no different than I in terms of his place in this
>> newsgroup. I know a fair amount about Epson printers, and printers in
>> general, but no one sponsors me here. I try to be helpful, and I try to
>> be fair.
>>
>> So, I would ask that you recognize Bob Headrick's position here, and not
>> badger him, because he is not obligated to be here. He is not here at
>> HP's bequest, and should he choose to leave, quite a few people will
>> will left with no HP expert here.
>>
>> Art
>>
>Ain't it the truth!
>
>This group is indeed fortunate to have Bob as a contributor. Bob is
>kind and smart enough to help those with questions & problems with HP
>printers but he is also smart enough to NOT bite the hand that feeds
>him or jump on those that do have a bone to pick with HP.
>
>Thanks Bob.
>
>Mickey

Yes.

Bob Headrick is a great resource and I appreciate the useful advice
that he gives.

PJ
December 29, 2004 5:44:21 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the
> comparison on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to
> analyze a purchasing decision.
>
> Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.
>
> Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP.
> He does it on his own time, to try to be helpful to people who have
> questions he can answer.

Bob Headrick's interventions here are surely helpful and if he indeed
intervenes here on his own time, he has quite a lot of merit. OTOH, when John
Wrigth writes:

"When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink and
toner."

he is absolutely right. So, though I don't expect Bob to admit we'd be so much
better off buying Samsung or Brother printers, his credibility would fare
better if he kept from answering nonsense in defense of HP,

Cf.:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=10soa5p9im0m1...;

mainly that he contends not to answer as an HP employee.

The problem with this kind of answer is that La Fiorina might think all HP is
siding with her. And I certainly hope such is not the case. And though I wish
Bob to get one promotion after another at HP, I wish it won't be at the
expense of tricking people into buying HP products here.

Now, if I sometimes seem to insist, it's just that I'm no computer expert and
if there's any reason to prefer HP that I'm not aware of, I'd like to hear it.
And Bob is certainly the person to give us any information in favor of HP
products.

But please, no "Ink and toner are so expensive" bullshit here.
Cf.: "HP's La Fiorina is playing the ink game"
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=10t14oehk6v7d...;

Regards!

GP
December 29, 2004 6:15:41 PM

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

GP wrote:

> Now, if I sometimes seem to insist, it's just that I'm no computer
> expert and if there's any reason to prefer HP that I'm not aware of, I'd
> like to hear it. And Bob is certainly the person to give us any
> information in favor of HP products.

Here's an information Bob sould have given. I just called a company that
services both HP and Brother. I was told that all of HP's cartridges include
the drum. The Brother HL-5140 has a separate drum and it seems it never lasts
the quoted 20,000 sheets, but more like 12,000 - 15,000 pages.

That brings the cost per print much closer. So, maybe this lady will get HP
one more sale, not Bob.

When you buy a printer once every 10 years, you're not an expert, you want the
facts and, gee! are they ever hard to get!

GP
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:38:12 PM

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

"GP" <gilpel@inverse.nretla.org> wrote in message
news:10t63u39ne44rce@corp.supernews.com...

> Here's an information Bob sould have given. I just called a company that
> services both HP and Brother. I was told that all of HP's cartridges include
> the drum. The Brother HL-5140 has a separate drum and it seems it never lasts
> the quoted 20,000 sheets, but more like 12,000 - 15,000 pages.

That may be true. I am *not* a LaserJet expert. I personally owned a
LaserJet,+, LaserJet II, LaserJet III and LaserJet 4 over the years, but since
I moved from the VLSI design part of HP to inkjets I have not kept up with the
LaserJet side of things. I still keep the LaserJet 4 around in case I want to
print some PC board transfers, but have to admit that it gets turned on about
once a year or so.

Thanks for all the kind works from Art, PJ and Mickey.

- Bob Headrick, 10 years as an inkjet guy for HP
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:39:55 PM

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

Hi Art -

Thanks for the support.

- Bob


"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:EnqAd.34972$dv1.34390@edtnps89...
> GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the comparison
> on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to analyze a
> purchasing decision.
>
> Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.
>
> Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP. He
> does it on his own dime, to try to be helpful to people who have questions he
> can answer. Yes, as an HP employee, he knows a bit about how they work, or
> knows who to ask to try to find answers for people who feel they aren't
> getting the information they require. But he has made it clear he cannot be
> an apologist for HP, and he is isn't here particularly to defend HP. Heck,
> for all we know, he may agree with some of the things you are concerned
> about.
>
> His being here is a plus for everyone on this group, and we should be more
> respectful of his willingness to be helpful.
>
> As I see it, he is no different than I in terms of his place in this
> newsgroup. I know a fair amount about Epson printers, and printers in
> general, but no one sponsors me here. I try to be helpful, and I try to be
> fair.
>
> So, I would ask that you recognize Bob Headrick's position here, and not
> badger him, because he is not obligated to be here. He is not here at HP's
> bequest, and should he choose to leave, quite a few people will will left
> with no HP expert here.
>
> Art
>
>
> GP wrote:
>
>> Bob Headrick wrote:
>>
>>
>> > In the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had $6.5B of
>> > revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B.
>>
>>> See: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2....
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks so much for this information, Mr Headrick! Unfortunately, at the
>> present time, my financial analysis is not at this level and I don't worry
>> too much how and where HP makes its money, but how I will get the best
>> printer for my money.
>>
>> So, let's just compare two printers, the HP 1012 and the Brother HL-5140:
>>
>> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/fr/un/WF06a/18972-236...
>> http://solutions.brother.com/hl5140_all/en_us/spec.html
>>
>> The Brother HL-5140, after a $50 coupon rebate, comes down to $300 (CAN) at
>> Staples, the HP 1012, after a $110 instant rebate, is $190. So the 1012 is
>> much cheaper. Or is it?
>>
>> The 1012 comes with a 1,000 pages half empty cartridge, the HL-5140 with a
>> full 3,500 pages cartridge. So you have to pay 2,500 pages extra for the
>> 1012 to get even. At $90 / 2000 pages cartridge(1), that's $90 * 1.25 =
>> $112.50. $190 + 112.50 = 302.50$. So, they're the same price. Or are they?
>>
>> (1)
>> <http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/cat_class.asp?CatIds=...;
>> The 1012 is host based not networkable, the HL-5140 is networkable. The 1012
>> has 8 megs unexpandable memory, the HL-5140 16 megs expandable to 144 in
>> case you want to network it. The HL-5140 offers full PCL6 support, the 1012
>> language is not stated.
>>
>> Linuxprinting says: "language looks like PJL + PCL 6" and "HP LaserJet 1010
>> works (...) with all raster drivers for the HP LaserJet 1100.
>> Unfortunately, the new LaserJet 1010/1012/1015 series seems not to be
>> absolutely compatible with older HP printers or it has a firmware bug.
>> Sometimes it happens that the printer stops working and reports the error
>> "Unsupported Personality: PCL".
>>
>> http://linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=HP-Las...
>>
>> The ML-5140 has a 250 sheets paper tray option, the 1012, none.
>>
>> Brother offers a 6,700 sheet cartridge for 135$ at Staples, which means each
>> page comes down to 2¢. Add 1¢ for the drum, there's still no need to make
>> prints and then go to the photocopy shop.
>>
>> (First I thought it was a great advantage that all the refurbishing industry
>> offered guarantee-ruining HP cartridges. Now, I understand why they don't
>> sell Brother's:) 
>>
>> The 1012 weights 13 pounds, the ML-5140, 23. When you look at both printers
>> in the store, the first looks like a flimsy toy, the second one like a
>> sturdy piece of equipment.
>>
>> Reviews say that the 1012 has better graphic quality. But I remember I went
>> for my Canon BJ-300 because quality was better than the Deskjet 500's and
>> bitterly regreted it. And I don't remember the last time I printed graphics.
>>
>> My dear Mr Headrick, I'm counting on you to explain why I should get a HP
>> printer. You know, with La Fiorina manufacturing-a in China, I'm wondering
>> if it wouldn't be much cheaper to buy directly from a Chinese, Korean or
>> serious Japanese printer company.
>>
>> I kinda think their "overhead" is much lower, mainly when the company's in
>> big trouble. Maybe you've read "Made in Japan" by Akio Morita. He was the
>> president of Sony and thought jets weren't such a necessity. So, imagine in
>> Korea!
>>
>> GP
>>
>
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:47:18 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:

>
> Thanks for all the kind works from Art, PJ and Mickey.
>
> - Bob Headrick, 10 years as an inkjet guy for HP
>
>

No need of thanks for speaking the truth.

If you read my other posts you likely know I'm a former HP guy. Still
have friends in Corvallis and son is a mfg eng at Vanc. Son says he
either knows you or of you. He spoke well of you when we once talked
about your contributions to this forum.

Mickey
HP retiree 25+ yrs McM
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:08:01 PM

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

In message <10t8ionue9dl9e@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Headrick
<bobh@proaxis.com> writes

>That may be true. I am *not* a LaserJet expert. I personally owned a
>LaserJet,+, LaserJet II, LaserJet III and LaserJet 4 over the years, but since
>I moved from the VLSI design part of HP to inkjets I have not kept up with the
>LaserJet side of things. I still keep the LaserJet 4 around in case I want to
>print some PC board transfers,

What do you print on to for that ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:08:02 PM

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

"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4xoHd8+BUS1BFwzd@wookie.demon.co.uk...
> In message <10t8ionue9dl9e@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Headrick
> <bobh@proaxis.com> writes
>
>> I still keep the LaserJet 4 around in case I want to
>> print some PC board transfers,
>
> What do you print on to for that ?

I use TEC-200 film from the Meadowlake Corp and Toner Transfer System. See
http://home.netnam.vn/elib/index.asp?SilverYear=94&id=2... or
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/dirtoner.pdf for details. My stuff is 10 years old
or so, I do not know if these are still in business.

Regards,
Bob Headrick
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:00:41 PM

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

I can't (nor would I, if I could) speak for Mr. Headrick.

I "read" his reply differently than you did, I guess. It seemed to me
he was indicating from those financials that a great deal of HP's
profits come from the printing and imaging sector of the company. I
didn't get the impression he was suggesting that toners and inks are
inherently very costly to make.

I'm quite sure Cary Fiorina is aware of how employees view here vision.
There was a vote of "confidence" of sorts during the Compaq merger,
and since most HP employees own HP stock they got to vote on it, and
they were pretty firmly opposed from the numbers I read, I suspect she
got the hint.

However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging into
the 2003 annual report, and if I understand the figures correctly,
here's the rundown. Of course, this simplifies things, because cost of
R&D doesn't always bear fruit the same year as it is spent.

Printing & Imagining Division: Revenues: $22.6 billion
Operating Profits: $3.75 billion

HP Services Division: Revenues: $12.3 billion
Operating Profits: $1.37 billion

Personal Systems Division: Revenues: $21.23 billion
Operating Profit: $19 million

Enterprise Systems Division: Revenues: $15.38 billion
Operating Profit: -$54 million (loss)

So, in terms of total profits, in 2003, the Printing and Imaging
Division made the highest profit, and I'd expect that the highest
profits within that division were in consumables (inks, toners and paper
goods).

That would indeed imply that the profits were mainly due to sales in
those items.

That information, GP, is also public, BTW.

Art


GP wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> GP, some of your arguments are certainly with merit. I think the
>> comparison on the HP versus Brother laser printers is a valid way to
>> analyze a purchasing decision.
>>
>> Where you are being unfair, however, is your tone with Mr. Bob Headrick.
>>
>> Bob Headrick's participation on this newsgroup is not sponsored by HP.
>> He does it on his own time, to try to be helpful to people who have
>> questions he can answer.
>
>
> Bob Headrick's interventions here are surely helpful and if he indeed
> intervenes here on his own time, he has quite a lot of merit. OTOH, when
> John Wrigth writes:
>
> "When I worked for Hewlett Packard some years ago I was given this inside
> information - that HP is not a computer company. It is not even a printer
> company. It is an ink/toner company. Bulk of its profits comes from ink and
> toner."
>
> he is absolutely right. So, though I don't expect Bob to admit we'd be
> so much better off buying Samsung or Brother printers, his credibility
> would fare better if he kept from answering nonsense in defense of HP,
>
> Cf.:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=10soa5p9im0m1...;
>
>
> mainly that he contends not to answer as an HP employee.
>
> The problem with this kind of answer is that La Fiorina might think all
> HP is siding with her. And I certainly hope such is not the case. And
> though I wish Bob to get one promotion after another at HP, I wish it
> won't be at the expense of tricking people into buying HP products here.
>
> Now, if I sometimes seem to insist, it's just that I'm no computer
> expert and if there's any reason to prefer HP that I'm not aware of, I'd
> like to hear it. And Bob is certainly the person to give us any
> information in favor of HP products.
>
> But please, no "Ink and toner are so expensive" bullshit here.
> Cf.: "HP's La Fiorina is playing the ink game"
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=10t14oehk6v7d...;
>
>
> Regards!
>
> GP
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:25:07 PM

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

One of the reasons it is difficult to make a fair analysis of the best
purchase is because many laser printer companies use differing designs.

I have owned a number of laser printers over the years, and I have
looked into them with some detail.

The Canon engine printers (Such as HP) usually use a cartridge that
contains a large portion of the printing mechanism. The drum, magnetic
roller, corona wires, developer and toner (one item in this case) are
all replaced with the cartridge. I have owned three of these style
printers.

Some people successfully refill the toner/developer several times in
this type of cartridge and get reasonable prints.

Other systems (like a Panasonic model I own) uses three separate parts
where the Canon uses one. The Panasonic model I use has a separate drum
unit, toner unit and developer unit with magnetic roller. Each have a
different lifespan. The toner is used up first, followed by the
developer and drum. However, I discovered that the drum, which is very
costly to replace, is the exact same dimensions as that used in several
HP/Canon toner cartridges.

So, when the drum on mine was damaged, I bought a new rebuilder's
replacement drum for an HP II cartridge for $11 US and exchanged the
gears from my Panasonic unit with the bad drum, and saved myself about
$150 US.

Some models, like a Konica-Minolta laser printer I purchased use two
units. It has a drum, and a toner cartridge, each separate and each
having a different lifespan, depending upon which yield toner cartridge
you buy.

So, as you can see, the problem is that there is no simple method to
fully analyze the best value without considerable knowledge and
experience. As you stated, some models or parts do not reach their
published lifespan either. And none of this tells us anything about
quality of the print or graphics.

Panasonic claimed with my printer that I would save money because I only
had to replace the one item which was used up. In principle, that may
have been true, but my experience in owning the machine now for quite a
few years is that the design of those parts of the printer is
problematic. Toner sometimes spills or leaks, the drum wiper doesn't
always clean the drum properly, and the design for removing the excess
toner never worked correctly and tended to clump and clog and back up
old toner. On the other hand my HP printers tended to work much more
reliably, and replacing the cartridge meant a new drum, fresh toner and
developer, and fresh magnetic roller.

I am not defecting or recommending any one brand over another. I have
obviously used several (plus three other with photocopiers) and each
have their strengths and weaknesses.

Sadly, all that I see these days have gone to the same business model,
that being, to keep cost of initial acquisition down, and cost of
consumables up.

Art

GP wrote:

> GP wrote:
>
>> Now, if I sometimes seem to insist, it's just that I'm no computer
>> expert and if there's any reason to prefer HP that I'm not aware of,
>> I'd like to hear it. And Bob is certainly the person to give us any
>> information in favor of HP products.
>
>
> Here's an information Bob sould have given. I just called a company that
> services both HP and Brother. I was told that all of HP's cartridges
> include the drum. The Brother HL-5140 has a separate drum and it seems
> it never lasts the quoted 20,000 sheets, but more like 12,000 - 15,000
> pages.
>
> That brings the cost per print much closer. So, maybe this lady will get
> HP one more sale, not Bob.
>
> When you buy a printer once every 10 years, you're not an expert, you
> want the facts and, gee! are they ever hard to get!
>
> GP
>
January 2, 2005 8:22:34 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I can't (nor would I, if I could) speak for Mr. Headrick.
>
> I "read" his reply differently than you did, I guess. It seemed to me
> he was indicating from those financials that a great deal of HP's
> profits come from the printing and imaging sector of the company. I
> didn't get the impression he was suggesting that toners and inks are
> inherently very costly to make.

While John Wright said that HP is "an ink/toner company", Bob Headrick pointed
out that "In the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging" sector had
$6.5B of revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B". So, printing an imaging
seemed just a little part of HP's business.

But, as John Wright answered:

"Your figures are right, but a couple of points to note here:

1. You are talking revenue, I am talking profits. HP gets a lot of revenue
in areas where they make little profit, or even loss.

2. The figures published for their Printing & Imaging division do not show
the figures for ink/toner separately from printers. You can't tell from the
figures that they are at best breaking even on printers (perhaps even making
a loss) but make a killing on ink/toner (again, looking at profits not
revenue). This information is not published - this is where the inside
information came in."

--------------------------

So the figures provided by Mr Headrick are irrelevant. He's trying to hide the
fact that HP is thriving on ink as a vampire on blood. I don't find it's an
honest answer.

> However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging into
> the 2003 annual report

Is it online? URL?

> and if I understand the figures correctly,
> here's the rundown. Of course, this simplifies things, because cost of
> R&D doesn't always bear fruit the same year as it is spent.
>
> Printing & Imagining Division: Revenues: $22.6 billion
> Operating Profits: $3.75 billion

16.6 % margin

> HP Services Division: Revenues: $12.3 billion
> Operating Profits: $1.37 billion

11.1% margin

> Personal Systems Division: Revenues: $21.23 billion
> Operating Profit: $19 million

0.08% margin

> Enterprise Systems Division: Revenues: $15.38 billion
> Operating Profit: -$54 million (loss)

- (minus) 0.35% margin, loss on revenue.

> So, in terms of total profits, in 2003, the Printing and Imaging
> Division made the highest profit, and I'd expect that the highest
> profits within that division were in consumables (inks, toners and paper
> goods).

That's exactly what John Wright was saying.

And how much do investor get from the Great Merger Robbery? 0.08% . Now that
IBM has sold its personal system division to Lenovo, it's going to be a
killing game between Dell and Levono where HP will be squashed.

In Quebec, Microbytes is thriving. Contrary to Future Shop and Staples offers,
where Compaq-HP is just about the only offer for the desktop, you can build
your computer the way you like and, instead of sending the computer to
Mississauga or God knows where for service, it's done onsite. When you get to
know the personnel, you know who you should talk to.

What will it take before investors understand that they've hired a John Roth
look-alike?

> That information, GP, is also public, BTW.

Though I don't have much time to study it, mainly given that I don't need it,
giving the URL would be nice.

GP
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:22:35 PM

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

"GP" <gilpel@inverse.nretla.org> wrote in message
news:10tgsrnocdej7b8@corp.supernews.com...
> Arthur Entlich wrote:

>> However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging into the
>> 2003 annual report
>
> Is it online? URL?

Yes, it is online and accessible from the previous link I gave. You can get
annual reports from 2000-2004 at
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/annual/, and there are also links
to quarterly information from 2004 back through 2002.

- Bob Headrick
January 2, 2005 9:13:28 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> One of the reasons it is difficult to make a fair analysis of the best
> purchase is because many laser printer companies use differing designs.

And it's the same for every product: a company comes up with a cheaper design
and sweeps the market. The problem is "cheap" is most often meant in both
senses of the term and the market is swamped with junk.

The funny thing is to see honest companies, such as former HP, are ready to
scrap their reputation and go head on for the masquerading game instead of
trying to explain why their product is better.

Of course, not all people are ready to study all the ins and outs of a
technology before buying but, as we see on thos group, some are. And, when it
comes to buying, people who aren't call people who are. We call people who
know more and we're called when we know more.

But the invertabrates that run companies nowadays do not believe in the value
of a reputation anymore. All that counts is immediate profit, the reputation
doesn't show in the books at the end of the year.

Somehow, -- because of the conjuncture, they say -- the profit evaporates and
business appears full of mysteries.

> The Canon engine printers (Such as HP) usually use a cartridge that
> contains a large portion of the printing mechanism. The drum, magnetic
> roller, corona wires, developer and toner (one item in this case) are
> all replaced with the cartridge. I have owned three of these style
> printers.

Three! I hope you print a lot :) 

> So, when the drum on mine was damaged, I bought a new rebuilder's
> replacement drum for an HP II cartridge for $11 US and exchanged the
> gears from my Panasonic unit with the bad drum, and saved myself about
> $150 US.

Some cartridge companies say they change the drum every time they refurbish a
cartridge. Do you believe that? I'd bet that, even at half the original's
price, they still make a bundle.

> So, as you can see, the problem is that there is no simple method to
> fully analyze the best value without considerable knowledge and
> experience.

Yes, I understand. But a little knowledge is better than nothing, I suppose.
It sometimes helps avoiding the deapest pitfalls.

The problem, as I said, is that pretty much all companies now play the
bullshit game and information is hard to get. You get some here, some from
friends, from HowThingsWork, etc. but it's a frustrating game.

> As you stated, some models or parts do not reach their
> published lifespan either. And none of this tells us anything about
> quality of the print or graphics.

And sometimes, when there is a lot of talk about the quality of the final
product, you find that it's based on a complex and delicate technology that
you'd have been better staying clear of.

> Panasonic claimed with my printer that I would save money because I only
> had to replace the one item which was used up. In principle, that may
> have been true, but my experience in owning the machine now for quite a
> few years is that the design of those parts of the printer is
> problematic. Toner sometimes spills or leaks, the drum wiper doesn't
> always clean the drum properly, and the design for removing the excess
> toner never worked correctly and tended to clump and clog and back up
> old toner. On the other hand my HP printers tended to work much more
> reliably, and replacing the cartridge meant a new drum, fresh toner and
> developer, and fresh magnetic roller.

Indeed. That's the way more recent consumer oriented printers seem to go. Such
is the case for the Samsung ML-1740, for instance. Compared to HP 1012, you
get 1000 pages worth more of toner for about 5$. But the graphic printing
quality is only so-so and the linux driver is not open-sourced.

> I am not defecting or recommending any one brand over another. I have
> obviously used several (plus three other with photocopiers) and each
> have their strengths and weaknesses.
>
> Sadly, all that I see these days have gone to the same business model,
> that being, to keep cost of initial acquisition down, and cost of
> consumables up.

Yup...

GP
January 2, 2005 11:13:00 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "GP" <gilpel@inverse.nretla.org> wrote in message
> news:10tgsrnocdej7b8@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>>>However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging into the
>>>2003 annual report
>>
>>Is it online? URL?
>
>
> Yes, it is online and accessible from the previous link I gave. You can get
> annual reports from 2000-2004 at
> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/annual/, and there are also links
> to quarterly information from 2004 back through 2002.
>
> - Bob Headrick

You're very kind, Bob. In my appreciation, reading annual reports from big
corporations scales next to a visit to Disney. They care about their
employees, subsidize education, are environmently conscious and they even pay
dividends when they incur losses. It's black and white and yellow people gayly
sharing the technology, all in colourful smiles in front if the camera.

At worst, you might learn that all information may not all be GAAP compliant.
But, who cares, it's on the last page.

What is more interesting is the 10-K form. But HP's is 174 page long and, in
order to understand what's going on, you must print it for quick back and
forth reference and spend a week studying it with a good whisky in hand.
Unfortunately, you know how much expensive ink is and I'm a bit short of
whisky these days.

Besides, 10-K forms are far from telling the whole story. I'm sure if you had
consulted those of WorldCom, Enron, Nortel, the year before everything went
haywire, the forms would have described paradise. No analysis makes sense
without a deep understanding of the market state in a peculiar business and an
*insider's view*.

I have a shallow understanding of the market HP's in, but no insider's view. A
good conversation with Walter Hewlett would certainly help, but I'm not sure
he's willing to pay the whisky.

So, as a mere consumer, all that remains is to find out what the company
manages to offer for my money. Whence the ink questions in the message entitled:

"Ink at $1228.95 (US) a liter: two questions to Bob Headrick".
10tgp7d8mm7kk67@corp.supernews.com

This is the message I would really appreciate you answer.

Regards!

GP
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:20:40 PM

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

Yes, the HP 2003 Annual Report is on line, and no, I don't have the URL
at my fingertips. I went to HP's website and I went to their investor
area, and I dug it up. It is also not presented as I did. They have it
broken down by quarter, so I added together all the quarters for the
year '03, for both revenues and profits in each division or sector of
the company to come up with the numbers I did.

I never stated that John Wright was wrong (excuse the pun). Bob simply
expressed the numbers based on revenues, which might have been what he
had readily available. I have no reason to assume Bob was trying to
mislead anyone.

The truth is, even my numbers may not show the complete picture. Let's
say HP loses money, once shelf space fees, advertising, design,
shipping. instruction manual creation and translation, etc and other
manufacturing costs are taken into account with the printers, scanners
an digital cameras themselves. If one removes the the hardware and
potential losses they may involve from the "Printing and imaging"
division, the ink and toner and consumables may actually have a vastly
higher profit margin still.

So, what do we conclude? HP is charging too much for the ink and toner
they sell? Well, yes, but that's only part of the story, isn't it? The
whole business is a entity. If everyone stopped buying HP ink and paper
and toner and used third party product, HP might possibly go under, but
before doing so, they would have to restructure their pricing.

Right now, pretty much everything HP sells, be it computers, scanners,
digital cameras or printers, is with one thing in mind. Hardcopy output
that uses paper and ink and toner. What is HP advertising (at least in
North America?) Color photo output. So, they are selling their
scanners, and printers and digital cameras and maybe even computers as
potential "lost leaders" so they can sell ink and toner and paper.
Although I personally do not like this business model, from a strictly
environmental aspect, if there was no longer a demand for the ink and
toner and paper, HP would revamp their pricing structure.

And I only choose HP as an example. Other companies that sell ink and
toner and paper do the same thing.

Regarding the merger in the computer divisions with Compaq, I agree it
was a bad move. Then again, so did almost everyone who had personal
investments involved. The vote was pushed the other way by
institutional investors and a few very heavily held owners.

Oh, as to 5% page coverage. I have seen examples of 5% page coverage.
It is basically a letter page with about 1/3 of the total page surface
covered with 12 point courier font. It isn't much. You know, it is
interesting, I tried doing a Google search for 5% ink coverage examples,
both by web and images, and came up empty. You would think there would
be several examples. The best I could do is find a block of black
equivalent to 5% of a page, but that doesn't really tell you much as to
how type looks on a page.

And finally, John Roth. gee, doesn't everyone know what a great CEO he
was, I think he won CEO of the year before Nortel stock crashed and
burned. Of course, by then, he had sold off most of the millions of
shares he had received in options while he was CEO.

Art


GP wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I can't (nor would I, if I could) speak for Mr. Headrick.
>>
>> I "read" his reply differently than you did, I guess. It seemed to me
>> he was indicating from those financials that a great deal of HP's
>> profits come from the printing and imaging sector of the company. I
>> didn't get the impression he was suggesting that toners and inks are
>> inherently very costly to make.
>
>
> While John Wright said that HP is "an ink/toner company", Bob Headrick
> pointed out that "In the most recent quarter the "Printing and Imaging"
> sector had $6.5B of revenue, out of a company overall of $21.1B". So,
> printing an imaging seemed just a little part of HP's business.
>
> But, as John Wright answered:
>
> "Your figures are right, but a couple of points to note here:
>
> 1. You are talking revenue, I am talking profits. HP gets a lot of revenue
> in areas where they make little profit, or even loss.
>
> 2. The figures published for their Printing & Imaging division do not show
> the figures for ink/toner separately from printers. You can't tell from the
> figures that they are at best breaking even on printers (perhaps even
> making
> a loss) but make a killing on ink/toner (again, looking at profits not
> revenue). This information is not published - this is where the inside
> information came in."
>
> --------------------------
>
> So the figures provided by Mr Headrick are irrelevant. He's trying to
> hide the fact that HP is thriving on ink as a vampire on blood. I don't
> find it's an honest answer.
>
>> However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging into
>> the 2003 annual report
>
>
> Is it online? URL?
>
>> and if I understand the figures correctly, here's the rundown. Of
>> course, this simplifies things, because cost of R&D doesn't always
>> bear fruit the same year as it is spent.
>>
>> Printing & Imagining Division: Revenues: $22.6 billion
>> Operating Profits: $3.75 billion
>
>
> 16.6 % margin
>
>> HP Services Division: Revenues: $12.3 billion
>> Operating Profits: $1.37 billion
>
>
> 11.1% margin
>
>> Personal Systems Division: Revenues: $21.23 billion
>> Operating Profit: $19 million
>
>
> 0.08% margin
>
>> Enterprise Systems Division: Revenues: $15.38 billion
>> Operating Profit: -$54 million (loss)
>
>
> - (minus) 0.35% margin, loss on revenue.
>
>> So, in terms of total profits, in 2003, the Printing and Imaging
>> Division made the highest profit, and I'd expect that the highest
>> profits within that division were in consumables (inks, toners and
>> paper goods).
>
>
> That's exactly what John Wright was saying.
>
> And how much do investor get from the Great Merger Robbery? 0.08% . Now
> that IBM has sold its personal system division to Lenovo, it's going to
> be a killing game between Dell and Levono where HP will be squashed.
>
> In Quebec, Microbytes is thriving. Contrary to Future Shop and Staples
> offers, where Compaq-HP is just about the only offer for the desktop,
> you can build your computer the way you like and, instead of sending the
> computer to Mississauga or God knows where for service, it's done
> onsite. When you get to know the personnel, you know who you should talk
> to.
>
> What will it take before investors understand that they've hired a John
> Roth look-alike?
>
>> That information, GP, is also public, BTW.
>
>
> Though I don't have much time to study it, mainly given that I don't
> need it, giving the URL would be nice.
>
> GP
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:17:22 PM

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

Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
some, they do not particularly inspire those who might have the answers
you seek to wish to engage in providing them to you, which seems, in the
long run, to be somewhat self-defeating, if indeed it is answers you are
actually after. A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.

Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?

It's a cleaver "Catch 22" you have spun, but it leaves very little point
in trying to offer additional input.

Art

GP wrote:
> Bob Headrick wrote:
>
>> "GP" <gilpel@inverse.nretla.org> wrote in message
>> news:10tgsrnocdej7b8@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> However, for the sake of information only, I did a bit of digging
>>>> into the 2003 annual report
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it online? URL?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is online and accessible from the previous link I gave. You
>> can get annual reports from 2000-2004 at
>> http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/annual/, and there are
>> also links to quarterly information from 2004 back through 2002.
>>
>> - Bob Headrick
>
>
> You're very kind, Bob. In my appreciation, reading annual reports from
> big corporations scales next to a visit to Disney. They care about their
> employees, subsidize education, are environmently conscious and they
> even pay dividends when they incur losses. It's black and white and
> yellow people gayly sharing the technology, all in colourful smiles in
> front if the camera.
>
> At worst, you might learn that all information may not all be GAAP
> compliant. But, who cares, it's on the last page.
>
> What is more interesting is the 10-K form. But HP's is 174 page long
> and, in order to understand what's going on, you must print it for quick
> back and forth reference and spend a week studying it with a good whisky
> in hand. Unfortunately, you know how much expensive ink is and I'm a bit
> short of whisky these days.
>
> Besides, 10-K forms are far from telling the whole story. I'm sure if
> you had consulted those of WorldCom, Enron, Nortel, the year before
> everything went haywire, the forms would have described paradise. No
> analysis makes sense without a deep understanding of the market state in
> a peculiar business and an *insider's view*.
>
> I have a shallow understanding of the market HP's in, but no insider's
> view. A good conversation with Walter Hewlett would certainly help, but
> I'm not sure he's willing to pay the whisky.
>
> So, as a mere consumer, all that remains is to find out what the company
> manages to offer for my money. Whence the ink questions in the message
> entitled:
>
> "Ink at $1228.95 (US) a liter: two questions to Bob Headrick".
> 10tgp7d8mm7kk67@corp.supernews.com
>
> This is the message I would really appreciate you answer.
>
> Regards!
>
> GP
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:14:54 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
> some, they do not particularly inspire those who might have the answers
> you seek to wish to engage in providing them to you, which seems, in the
> long run, to be somewhat self-defeating, if indeed it is answers you are
> actually after. A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
> address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
> information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
> there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
> uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.
>
> Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
> untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
> your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?
>
> It's a cleaver "Catch 22" you have spun, but it leaves very little point
> in trying to offer additional input.
>
You have expressed far more diplomatically than I the essence of "GP's"
posting "style".

I also hope others won't waste their time trying to explain things to him.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:31:29 PM

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

GP, I'm getting sick of your holier than thou attitude which denigrates
the very people who spend their own time here trying to help people like
you. Therefore, pay a little attention to those who are here, accept
that you may not get all the information you want and live with it.

Toner standards are NOTORIOUSLY difficult to define as so many variables
can lead to differing results. Paper type, paper size, air humidity,
temperature, differing coverages etc. It has taken ages tof the
manufacturers to agree to a standard against which they can be measured.
Read the following and be educated. Come back later without the attitude
if you need further questions answering.

Press Rlease from ISO, OEMs Support New ISO Standard (7/1/2004)

Canon, Epson, Hewlett-Packard and Lexmark announced their support of the
new International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard,
ISO/IEC 19752, for monochrome toner cartridge yield in monochrome laser
printers. The companies are leading proponents of industry standards and
believe a single, rigorous, worldwide ISO standard to measure monochrome
toner cartridge yield will help customers more objectively and
accurately evaluate printer and print cartridge yield.

The new ISO standard for monochrome toner cartridge yield clearly
defines the key attributes that affect yield and applies robust
statistical analysis so all manufacturers can utilize the same
methodology when measuring yield. For instance, instead of testing a
couple of cartridges on a single printer, this standard requires that at
least nine cartridges be tested on a minimum of three separate printers.
Rather than taking the average of the yield of the nine cartridges, a
robust statistical method is used to calculate the lower 95 percent
confidence bound. This more accurately represents the potential customer
experience by taking into account manufacturing variations in the
performance of the cartridges and the printers. Until now, printer
manufacturers have used a variety of methodologies to measure toner
yield, making it challenging for customers to accurately compare yield
measurements from leading suppliers.

Canon, Epson, HP, and Lexmark have supported and acted as key
participants in ISO's development of an industry standard for
determining toner cartridge yield for monochrome laser printers. These
companies believe the standard's robust criteria and consistency, ISO's
unbiased and global approach, and the industry-wide participation in
developing the standard will result in significant benefits for
customers and the printing industry alike. The new standard can be used
to evaluate OEM (original equipment manufacturer) remanufactured and
refilled toner cartridges.

"ISO's voluntary standards must be robust to endure the rigorous
processes that ensure they meet the requirements of businesses and their
customers worldwide and the designation of 'ISO International
Standard'," said Roger Frost, ISO Press and Communications Manager.
"Developed by experts from organizations throughout the world in the
sectors that will put them to use, the standards represent an
international consensus on state-of-the-art solutions for technological
and business challenges."

"The new ISO standard for determining monochrome toner yield puts a
solid foundation in place to evolve standards for color laser and inkjet
technology," said Mogens Molgaard Jensen, Executive Vice President of
Canon Europe and Head of Consumer Imaging for Canon Europe, Middle East
and Africa.

"This new standard should be a call to action for the printing industry
to support and adhere to these new, rigorous testing methodologies to
measure monochrome toner cartridge yield, and also seek to formulate
similar standards for color cartridges," said Seiichi Hirano, director
and chief executive of the Imaging and Information Products Operations
Division, Seiko Epson Corp. "Widespread adoption will ensure customers
have access to yield information they can rely on when making the
purchase decision."

"Customers can be assured that companies who support and adhere to the
new ISO standard are using the most robust testing criteria available
for determining monochrome toner printer yield," said Pradeep Jotwani,
senior vice president of Supplies, Imaging and Printing Group, HP.
"However, yield is only one among many factors in the overall costs of
printing. To get the best overall value, we advise our customers to
consider reliability, productivity, quality, speed, and ease of use as
well."

"Lexmark actively supported the development of the ISO standard for
monochrome toner print cartridge yield (for monochrome laser printers),"
said Paul Rooke, Lexmark executive vice president and president of its
Printing Solutions and Services Division. "We believe ISO's unbiased,
global approach will result in significant customer and industry benefits."

ISO is an internationally recognized organization that has successfully
developed many important and broadly used standards by working closely
with standards organizations around the world and from all parts of the
printing industry to arrive at unbiased, robust, reliable standards on
behalf of customers.

Following are key provisions of the ISO standard for monochrome toner
cartridge yield:

Technically Robust Testing Criteria

Standard test document: Use of a standard page printed in a controlled
environment with printer default settings.

Number of cartridges tested: A minimum of nine of each cartridge is
tested until they stop printing, allowing reliable estimates of lowest
predicted yield with 95 percent statistical confidence.

Source for cartridges: Cartridges and printers used represent those
available to customers on the open market.

Clear, objective, end-of-life criteria: Determines cartridge yield
through measurements that establish an end-of-life criterion.

Number of printers: A minimum of three cartridges are tested on three
different printers to avoid bias due to printer variability.

Controlled environment: Printing environment is controlled and
consistent because temperature and humidity variations affect yield.

Objectivity: Because of worldwide and industry-wide participation, the
testing criteria reflect objectivity in developing a reliable and
rigorous standard.

Consensus-Driven International Standards

Canon, Epson, HP, and Lexmark, along with other OEMs, are also working
with the ISO cartridge standards committee to develop a similar standard
for color inkjet cartridges and printers as well as color laser
cartridges and printers. These standards are expected to be complete in
late 2005.

Details of the ISO standard can be accessed on the ISO Web site at
www.iso.org/iso. The ISO homepage is www.iso.org.

--
Mushroom
January 5, 2005 7:16:42 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
> some,

Gee, Art! Maybe it you stopped top posting, as it has often been suggested, I
might get to know which passages you'refering to as sardonic.

Of course, yes, I'm sometimes ironic as there's absolutely no way I will get
an HP representative not-speaking-for-his-employer to agree that his company
is playing the ink game. In such circumstances, itony gets faster to the point.

> A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
> address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
> information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
> there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
> uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.

If you want to get technical information from Bob Headrick, no problem. He'll
provide the best he can, err... unless, maybe, if it's about fixing a 10 years
old printer. There, I don't know. As an HP representative
not-speaking-for-his-employer, he'll even send you an 8 x 10 print free of
charge over the Atlantic :)  (This means irony. Do you really believe Bob is
using his own money to send prints all over the world?)

But, however courteous I'd be, there's absolutely no way I'll get him to admit
Joe Average will never print close to 450 pages from an ink cartridge and that
HP is playing the ink game by misleading him into believing that 5% coverage
is approximately equivalent to what he usually prints.

It might be that Joe Average won't reproduce in-house the precise optimal
laboratory settings, but it surely is that, instead of reading on-screen and
saving the files, Joe prints a lot of material from the net and it's full of
graphics. Joe will end up paying at least twice what HP pretends his costs
will be.

I'm sorry, Art, but this stupid game pisses me off. And so does cutting the
cartridge capacity by 20% and hiding the fact under the /Related product/ tab.
I find this is an invitation to irony.

> Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
> untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
> your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?

Hey, I did find that HP's annual report was not GAAP compliant. I did get the
10k report and I did find that HP was being sued for offering half-empty --
half-full? Ok, half-full! -- cartridges with its printers. That was
interesting. I never said this was not trustworthy information. Maybe some
investors, as you once were, will also get some useful information from this.

GP
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 8:14:34 PM

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

Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
disrespectful about it. People are multifacited and complex, and I
don't assume, and have not found that just because they hold a certain
set of beliefs means thay are necessarily not worthwhile knowing and I
certainly can be both civil and respectful to them, regardless.

In this case, I know this person in other settings, and know him to be a
decent and caring person, who gives of himself, well beyond anything
expected from him due to his employer. I also understand within his
function in this newsgroup he has certain allegences he must maintain,
and I think he does a great job of being helpful while functioning
within that space.

If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
actions to resolve your "bladder" issues. But, you are barking up the
wrong tree, and I don't know how many more ways I can state it.
Misdirected, inappropriate attacks and complaints are not only not
effective, they are distructive to others and don't advance your cause.

I am NOT defending any of these companies for the business models they
use. Not in the slightest. But with people reacting as you show
yourself to here, I'm almost embarrased to be seen on the same side as
you are.

I do not comprehend how the tact you have taken in regard to the
directed "irony" advances your cause. It's a bit like going up to
someone who is very overweight and telling them they are fat, and
thinking you have helped resolve the crisis of overeating in the US.

Art

GP wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining
>> to some,
>
>
> Gee, Art! Maybe it you stopped top posting, as it has often been
> suggested, I might get to know which passages you'refering to as sardonic.
>
> Of course, yes, I'm sometimes ironic as there's absolutely no way I will
> get an HP representative not-speaking-for-his-employer to agree that his
> company is playing the ink game. In such circumstances, itony gets
> faster to the point.
>
>> A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
>> address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
>> information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption
>> that there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's
>> allegiances to uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for
>> discourse.
>
>
> If you want to get technical information from Bob Headrick, no problem.
> He'll provide the best he can, err... unless, maybe, if it's about
> fixing a 10 years old printer. There, I don't know. As an HP
> representative not-speaking-for-his-employer, he'll even send you an 8 x
> 10 print free of charge over the Atlantic :)  (This means irony. Do you
> really believe Bob is using his own money to send prints all over the
> world?)
>
> But, however courteous I'd be, there's absolutely no way I'll get him to
> admit Joe Average will never print close to 450 pages from an ink
> cartridge and that HP is playing the ink game by misleading him into
> believing that 5% coverage is approximately equivalent to what he
> usually prints.
>
> It might be that Joe Average won't reproduce in-house the precise
> optimal laboratory settings, but it surely is that, instead of reading
> on-screen and saving the files, Joe prints a lot of material from the
> net and it's full of graphics. Joe will end up paying at least twice
> what HP pretends his costs will be.
>
> I'm sorry, Art, but this stupid game pisses me off. And so does cutting
> the cartridge capacity by 20% and hiding the fact under the /Related
> product/ tab. I find this is an invitation to irony.
>
>> Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
>> untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
>> your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright,
>> anyway?
>
>
> Hey, I did find that HP's annual report was not GAAP compliant. I did
> get the 10k report and I did find that HP was being sued for offering
> half-empty -- half-full? Ok, half-full! -- cartridges with its printers.
> That was interesting. I never said this was not trustworthy information.
> Maybe some investors, as you once were, will also get some useful
> information from this.
>
> GP
>
January 6, 2005 8:14:35 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
> he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
> habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
> longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
> received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
> appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
> perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

If top posting is against nettiquette, there must be some sensible reasons to
it, don't you think? And the most evident is that if you post below the text
you're answering to, it's easier, quicker, to see if you're indeed addressing
the matter at hand or are just surfing on your looney's thoughts.

It's easier to check if any question that was raised is left answered.

In your last message I answered, I didn't answer one of the questions you
raised because I was fed up checking what you were refering to. This might
happen more often.

> You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
> case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
> comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
> postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
> contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
> friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
> than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
> fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
> choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
> respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
> when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
> disrespectful about it.

Faith is one thing, running a crocked business, another.

> If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
> Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
> starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
> others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
> then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
> letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
> actions to resolve your "bladder" issues.

Making the people aware that they must check what they're getting from HP is a
lot more efficient than your suggestions here. I don't believe it has to do
with my bladder issues.

If people here and in the stores would have brought to my attention the fact
that HP has changed a lot since the coming of La Fiorina, I would, at least,
have been more attentive to the costs of consumables.

Not setting the facts straight produced a lag that benefits some companies'
treachery. You now know that if I'm commenting on HP it's both because I
bought an HP printer and because it's an american company whose reputation is
ruined by a careless CEO, and that's the way too many of ours companies have
disappeared or have become lame ducks.

I may comment on Samsung if you wish. I bought a SyncMaster 950p monitor more
than 3 years ago and am totally satisfied with it.

GP
January 6, 2005 9:28:42 PM

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

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:14:34 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
uttered:

>Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
>he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
>habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
>longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
>received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
>appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
>perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.
>
>You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
>case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
>comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
>postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
>contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
>friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
>than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
>fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
>choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
>respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
>when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
>disrespectful about it. People are multifacited and complex, and I
>don't assume, and have not found that just because they hold a certain
>set of beliefs means thay are necessarily not worthwhile knowing and I
>certainly can be both civil and respectful to them, regardless.
>
>In this case, I know this person in other settings, and know him to be a
>decent and caring person, who gives of himself, well beyond anything
>expected from him due to his employer. I also understand within his
>function in this newsgroup he has certain allegences he must maintain,
>and I think he does a great job of being helpful while functioning
>within that space.
>
>If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
>Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
>starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
>others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
>then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
>letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
>actions to resolve your "bladder" issues. But, you are barking up the
>wrong tree, and I don't know how many more ways I can state it.
>Misdirected, inappropriate attacks and complaints are not only not
>effective, they are distructive to others and don't advance your cause.
>
>I am NOT defending any of these companies for the business models they
>use. Not in the slightest. But with people reacting as you show
>yourself to here, I'm almost embarrased to be seen on the same side as
>you are.
>
>I do not comprehend how the tact you have taken in regard to the
>directed "irony" advances your cause. It's a bit like going up to
>someone who is very overweight and telling them they are fat, and
>thinking you have helped resolve the crisis of overeating in the US.
>
>Art
>
>GP wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining
>>> to some,
>>
>>
>> Gee, Art! Maybe it you stopped top posting, as it has often been
>> suggested, I might get to know which passages you'refering to as sardonic.
>>
>> Of course, yes, I'm sometimes ironic as there's absolutely no way I will
>> get an HP representative not-speaking-for-his-employer to agree that his
>> company is playing the ink game. In such circumstances, itony gets
>> faster to the point.
>>
>>> A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
>>> address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
>>> information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption
>>> that there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's
>>> allegiances to uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for
>>> discourse.
>>
>>
>> If you want to get technical information from Bob Headrick, no problem.
>> He'll provide the best he can, err... unless, maybe, if it's about
>> fixing a 10 years old printer. There, I don't know. As an HP
>> representative not-speaking-for-his-employer, he'll even send you an 8 x
>> 10 print free of charge over the Atlantic :)  (This means irony. Do you
>> really believe Bob is using his own money to send prints all over the
>> world?)
>>
>> But, however courteous I'd be, there's absolutely no way I'll get him to
>> admit Joe Average will never print close to 450 pages from an ink
>> cartridge and that HP is playing the ink game by misleading him into
>> believing that 5% coverage is approximately equivalent to what he
>> usually prints.
>>
>> It might be that Joe Average won't reproduce in-house the precise
>> optimal laboratory settings, but it surely is that, instead of reading
>> on-screen and saving the files, Joe prints a lot of material from the
>> net and it's full of graphics. Joe will end up paying at least twice
>> what HP pretends his costs will be.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Art, but this stupid game pisses me off. And so does cutting
>> the cartridge capacity by 20% and hiding the fact under the /Related
>> product/ tab. I find this is an invitation to irony.
>>
>>> Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
>>> untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
>>> your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright,
>>> anyway?
>>
>>
>> Hey, I did find that HP's annual report was not GAAP compliant. I did
>> get the 10k report and I did find that HP was being sued for offering
>> half-empty -- half-full? Ok, half-full! -- cartridges with its printers.
>> That was interesting. I never said this was not trustworthy information.
>> Maybe some investors, as you once were, will also get some useful
>> information from this.
>>
>> GP
>>
Yes, that's fine


--
Dewi,

(remove spin for email)
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:24:12 PM

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

In message <_leDd.53122$dv1.51889@edtnps89>, Arthur Entlich
<artistic@telus.net> writes

>Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
>he has a problem with it,

Make that two.


> and I have no intention of changing my posting habits, anyway. I have
>top posted for over 10 years, probably much longer than most people
>have been on the internet,

So does being silly a long time make you sensible ?


> and I've perhaps received 5 complaints in all that time about it.

This is six then.


> In general, it would appear, the value of my postings make any extra
>effort someone might perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

Maybe, but making them easier to follow would enhance them further.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:08:58 AM

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

1: No chance I'm changing my posting style, so don't waste your fingers.

2: The sooner you get fed up with answering my posts (and maybe sooner)
the sooner I can get back to posting answers to printer questions.

3: Just because something is traditionally done in a certain manner
doesn't prove it to be best, it may just be... tradition. I have been
known to eat my salad with a meat fork (since I don't eat meat), it has
yet to cause me undue harm I am aware of.

4: I think you may have misunderstood my point. I am not objecting to
your expressing your complains about HP in this forum, by any means. I
mainly deal and own Epson printers (in inkjet format) and HP and others
in laser. I am very critical of certain aspects of Epson design, and
corporate culture and have stated so many times on this and other public
forums. I am talking about target practice. Shooting the guy setting
up the targets for you is not going to be well appreciated, and will
probably just either kill the guy or make him unwilling to service your
need for targets any more.

If you wish to challenge HP, their product, their business model, their
CEO, then do so. I believe legitimate arguments will be both tolerated
and cause reflection.

Taunting an individual who is here on his own accord to help people in
an area he knows about, which happens to be HP printers, and expecting
him to engage in a battle you are presenting regarding HP is unfair to
that person and silly on your part. Most of us are forced, on some
level, to make sacrifices in our work position. Very few people can
feel 100% integrated with the work they do. If, as part of a sense of
fair play, a person chooses to give of his own time to help others in an
area he is knowledgeable as a result of his work place knowledge, I do
not feel it is appropriate to taunt him nor to expect him to thwart his
employer by criticizing them. That is unrealistic. It also may be that
we are not privy to the full scope of the picture.

Compared to top posting, that behavior can be considerably more boorish
and less fruitful.

Art


GP wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here
>> that he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my
>> posting habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably
>> much longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've
>> perhaps received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general,
>> it would appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort
>> someone might perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.
>
>
> If top posting is against nettiquette, there must be some sensible
> reasons to it, don't you think? And the most evident is that if you post
> below the text you're answering to, it's easier, quicker, to see if
> you're indeed addressing the matter at hand or are just surfing on your
> looney's thoughts.
>
> It's easier to check if any question that was raised is left answered.
>
> In your last message I answered, I didn't answer one of the questions
> you raised because I was fed up checking what you were refering to. This
> might happen more often.
>
>> You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
>> case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your
>> sardonic comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered
>> throughout your postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the
>> position some contributors need to work within to offer their help
>> here. I have friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or
>> depth of faith than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief
>> system, but I fully comprehend that they live and function within it,
>> either as a choice, or as a way of life that came from their
>> upbringing. I can respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I
>> can even challenge it, when appropriate. However, I don't need or
>> desire to be mocking or disrespectful about it.
>
>
> Faith is one thing, running a crocked business, another.
>
>> If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
>> Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
>> starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
>> others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
>> then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
>> letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple
>> other actions to resolve your "bladder" issues.
>
>
> Making the people aware that they must check what they're getting from
> HP is a lot more efficient than your suggestions here. I don't believe
> it has to do with my bladder issues.
>
> If people here and in the stores would have brought to my attention the
> fact that HP has changed a lot since the coming of La Fiorina, I would,
> at least, have been more attentive to the costs of consumables.
>
> Not setting the facts straight produced a lag that benefits some
> companies' treachery. You now know that if I'm commenting on HP it's
> both because I bought an HP printer and because it's an american company
> whose reputation is ruined by a careless CEO, and that's the way too
> many of ours companies have disappeared or have become lame ducks.
>
> I may comment on Samsung if you wish. I bought a SyncMaster 950p monitor
> more than 3 years ago and am totally satisfied with it.
>
> GP
>
January 9, 2005 4:43:50 AM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> 1: No chance I'm changing my posting style, so don't waste your fingers.

In my last message, I posted a gif of the part of the RFC 1855 about top
posting. You know what's an RFC and since you pretend you've been on the
newsgroups for ten years, what you really mean is you're an idiot.

Because, this is as much a matter of liberty as it would be for a fool to
pretend that driving his car on reverse all the time is a matter of liberty.

So, you're really a damned idiot? All your pretention to having some technical
merit is pure bullshit?

Here's the url, once again:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Which means: The Internet Engineering Task Force, Request For Comment document
1855.

Search on:

If you are sending a reply

GP
January 9, 2005 6:28:17 AM

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

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:08:58 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
uttered:


>3: Just because something is traditionally done in a certain manner
>doesn't prove it to be best, it may just be... tradition. I have been
>known to eat my salad with a meat fork (since I don't eat meat), it has
>yet to cause me undue harm I am aware of.
>

>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here
>>> that he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my
>>> posting habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably
>>> much longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've
>>> perhaps received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general,
>>> it would appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort
>>> someone might perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.
>>
>>
>> If top posting is against nettiquette, there must be some sensible
>> reasons to it, don't you think? And the most evident is that if you post
>> below the text you're answering to, it's easier, quicker, to see if
>> you're indeed addressing the matter at hand or are just surfing on your
>> looney's thoughts.
>>
>> It's easier to check if any question that was raised is left answered.
>>
>> In your last message I answered, I didn't answer one of the questions
>> you raised because I was fed up checking what you were refering to. This
>> might happen more often.
>>
>>> You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
>>> case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your
>>> sardonic comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered
>>> throughout your postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the
>>> position some contributors need to work within to offer their help
>>> here. I have friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or
>>> depth of faith than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief
>>> system, but I fully comprehend that they live and function within it,
>>> either as a choice, or as a way of life that came from their
>>> upbringing. I can respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I
>>> can even challenge it, when appropriate. However, I don't need or
>>> desire to be mocking or disrespectful about it.
>>
>>
>> Faith is one thing, running a crocked business, another.
>>
>>> If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
>>> Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
>>> starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
>>> others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
>>> then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
>>> letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple
>>> other actions to resolve your "bladder" issues.
>>
>>
>> Making the people aware that they must check what they're getting from
>> HP is a lot more efficient than your suggestions here. I don't believe
>> it has to do with my bladder issues.
>>
>> If people here and in the stores would have brought to my attention the
>> fact that HP has changed a lot since the coming of La Fiorina, I would,
>> at least, have been more attentive to the costs of consumables.
>>
>> Not setting the facts straight produced a lag that benefits some
>> companies' treachery. You now know that if I'm commenting on HP it's
>> both because I bought an HP printer and because it's an american company
>> whose reputation is ruined by a careless CEO, and that's the way too
>> many of ours companies have disappeared or have become lame ducks.
>>
>> I may comment on Samsung if you wish. I bought a SyncMaster 950p monitor
>> more than 3 years ago and am totally satisfied with it.
>>
>> GP
>>
He has a point ;-)


--
Dewi,

(remove spin for email)
!