Head Leak on Epson C62 ?

[davy]

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

I had enough of the C62, so I ended up dismantling the head assembly
yet again, as before I noted ink weeping from edge of the head clamp,
cleaning the whole face with isopropanol, re-assembling and a couple
of nozzles cleans brought it back to life along with the same old
symptoms.

So I removed the head assembley again knowingly for the last time,
upon removing the head clamp I was aghast with the amount of dried
ink that had caked up on one side of the clamp, the dried ink came
off in tiny clumps, I could see a small damp area where I presume the
ink had been coming from, the other three edges was intact with no
signs of ink build up.

Since this is the 2nd printer with the same print faults as the
original I am pretty sure that the cause was the same and a pretty
good bet that it was on the same edge.

It seems hard to imagine two printers with presummeably the same
defects, the nozzle selector board which is at right angles to the
print head, was intact and clean, no ink stains (this is a small PCB
that carries the connections to the print head), any corrosion of the
copper tracks will cause print problems and ink stains will cause the
copper tracks to short or become leaky to electrical signals that
drive the head.

What could have caused this in two printers I can only put down to
poor design or faulty manufacture of the print head. I doubt that
there is anything that I could have done to create this fault on two
printers in about the same period of time.

But as I have said it all began by a nozzle clean which seem to become
more frequent.

I put the printer where it best belongs - in the trash bin

Davy

 

[davy]

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

Ivor floppy & Guest

How right you are, guess I have learned the hard way, I would have
been pacified and tolerated if Epson had offered me an alternative
printer with cash adjustment..!

Alarms bells should have sounded at Seiko Epson when two printers went
the same way in about the same period - but no.

It seems that Epson knew of the situation and 'passed the buck'
knowing the same problem would arise.

Oh boy, they have'nt even addressed the ink tank problem, with the
amount of head cleaning cycles they should offer bigger ink tanks,
especially for the price they charge, and who knows it just may well
be 'El cheapo ink' they do use, I ain't ever seen inside of an Epson
ink factory, have you, is it really that pitiful or that secrative
they don't want us to know - and don't tell me its special ink.

Better buying a Lexmark and tossing it overboard each time you want a
refill - It's much cheaper and you get a new printer for the price of
a set of Epson tanks. It's a known fact that Epson inks keeps them
going, this is why they offer cheaper printer's.

Davy

 

[davy]

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

> measekitewrote:

>
> The R series printers seem to have decent reviews.
>
> aye, for CLOGGING...! Read the forums and not just this.
>
> Instead of quoting what I have already said, maybe now you will tell
us why I should buy and trust Epson again.
>
> Quality control - do tell me more ....Lol....
>
> With Lexmark you do get a free printer with the cartridge....!
>
> Davy said that.

 

[Guest]

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

I think your analysis is probably correct, that a manufacturing defect
occurred in a group of these printers and you got two from the same run.

It's a pity, and I think had Epson been a bit more on top of things (The
UK does seem to have its share of problems with Epson's customer and
tech support) they should have provided another replacement from a
different batch of printers which did not have the defects.

Art

Davy wrote:

> I had enough of the C62, so I ended up dismantling the head assembly
> yet again, as before I noted ink weeping from edge of the head clamp,
> cleaning the whole face with isopropanol, re-assembling and a couple
> of nozzles cleans brought it back to life along with the same old
> symptoms.
>
> So I removed the head assembley again knowingly for the last time,
> upon removing the head clamp I was aghast with the amount of dried
> ink that had caked up on one side of the clamp, the dried ink came
> off in tiny clumps, I could see a small damp area where I presume the
> ink had been coming from, the other three edges was intact with no
> signs of ink build up.
>
> Since this is the 2nd printer with the same print faults as the
> original I am pretty sure that the cause was the same and a pretty
> good bet that it was on the same edge.
>
> It seems hard to imagine two printers with presummeably the same
> defects, the nozzle selector board which is at right angles to the
> print head, was intact and clean, no ink stains (this is a small PCB
> that carries the connections to the print head), any corrosion of the
> copper tracks will cause print problems and ink stains will cause the
> copper tracks to short or become leaky to electrical signals that
> drive the head.
>
> What could have caused this in two printers I can only put down to
> poor design or faulty manufacture of the print head. I doubt that
> there is anything that I could have done to create this fault on two
> printers in about the same period of time.
>
> But as I have said it all began by a nozzle clean which seem to become
> more frequent.
>
> I put the printer where it best belongs - in the trash bin
>
> Davy
>

 

[Guest]

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

Davy wrote:

>Ivor floppy & Guest
>
>How right you are, guess I have learned the hard way, I would have
>been pacified and tolerated if Epson had offered me an alternative
>printer with cash adjustment..!
>
>Alarms bells should have sounded at Seiko Epson when two printers went
>the same way in about the same period - but no.
>
>It seems that Epson knew of the situation and 'passed the buck'
>knowing the same problem would arise.
>
>Oh boy, they have'nt even addressed the ink tank problem, with the
>amount of head cleaning cycles they should offer bigger ink tanks,
>especially for the price they charge, and who knows it just may well
>be 'El cheapo ink' they do use,
>

I do not think Epson ink is the same as the 3rd party junk that is out
there.

>I ain't ever seen inside of an Epson
>ink factory,
>

It is not the factory and who the laborers are; it is the formulation,
engineering and quality control.

>have you, is it really that pitiful or that secrative
>they don't want us to know - and don't tell me its special ink.
>
>Better buying a Lexmark and tossing it overboard each time you want a
>refill -
>

Total Trash.

> It's much cheaper and you get a new printer for the price of
>a set of Epson tanks. It's a known fact that Epson inks keeps them
>going, this is why they offer cheaper printer's.
>
>

The R series printers seem to have decent reviews.

>Davy
>
>
>

 

[davy]

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

A very good point, using one brand then switching to another certainly
is not going to help, Il agree with you on that

Epson makes a variety of inks as you quite rightly say, I will add,
but for a variety of printers, unlike HP where you switch inks.

Mine clogged with Epson ink. I really do think this points a finger
in another direction and maybe a distraction from finding the root
of the problem.

There seems to be some clue about having to do more and more nozzles
clean as time went by, dried ink, sediments perhaps? As already been
suggested head cleaning routine, seems rather eerie to me.

Switch on, head clean, waste ink goes into inkwell, mixes, maybe
thickens, fills sufficient to re-ink the heads, blade wipes heads,
blades pushes ink off as well as being pushed into the nozzles -
pretty colours nice n' thick.

That idea you have sounds fine and dandy, especially incoporated in
ink tanks and will prove the cleaning theory.

Cheers and thanks.

Davy

 

[frank]

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

Burt wrote:
> If a printer gets run over by a truck or falls out of a 20th story window
> and ceases to print, Measekite will blame it on aftermarket inks. One track
> mind.

And there's never one around when you need'm!
Frank

 

[zakezuke]

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

> You have to remember that Epson, HP, Canon etc. are in the business to make
> money - there's no sense in them making a printer that lasts for years and
> years when the technology only changes and improves slightly during that
> period. The printer market is probably close to saturation point already
> which is why the manufacturers have had to shift their emphasis onto cheap
> printers and expensive inks to make any profit.

Yes the purpose to any business is in the end to make money. But the
model is based on the disposable razor blade one. It seems to me that
every time they sell a printer they are doing so at a loss in the hopes
that you'll buy their consumables. Would they not stand to make a
larger profit if they didn't sell something at a loss but rather
continued buying consumables?

 

[Guest]

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

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118546403.642679.90230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[..]

> Should Epson address the following issues...
> 1. Head wipe.
Never known anyone have problems with that.

> 2. Discharge system, replaceable diaper
It *would* be easy to make this replaceable but its unlikely for reasons
stated below.

> 3. Detachable head (too much to hope for) in the *unlikely* event that
> it clogs.

Certain Epson's aren't too difficult to change the printhhead (assuming
you'd want to bother) - models like the C40 have heads that can (with a bit
of force) be clipped out. Re-alignment is the biggest issue with head
changing - it can be quite a fiddly process to get the nozzles printing in a
straight line after a head change.

You have to remember that Epson, HP, Canon etc. are in the business to make
money - there's no sense in them making a printer that lasts for years and
years when the technology only changes and improves slightly during that
period. The printer market is probably close to saturation point already
which is why the manufacturers have had to shift their emphasis onto cheap
printers and expensive inks to make any profit.

 

[Guest]

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

Although, if you look through the archives regarding my responses to his
unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
have seen Epson do that gives pause.

As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
that by now.

However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to try to
resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that some
major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
directly to the attention of their people.

Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.

The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
the marketing division must have made.

Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
brands offer better and less costly to run systems.

Marky wrote:

> Davy,
>
> It appears that you've had an unfortunate experience with your printer and
> support in the UK but, as someone who actually worked in the US support (8
> years experience) department for Epson, I disagree with some of the things
> you've mentioned here or that others bring up in this forum.
>
> BTW, although I left Epson support only recently I did not leave because I
> thought Epson was a bad company, just to find greener pastures. I'm not here
> to tout Epson products or to vouch for their corporate health or to one-up
> anyone in technical knowledge (because there are things I simply don't know
> that others here do). I simply missed the wonderful feeling of helping
> others who need it...
>
> I won't go into details now but can assure you that most of what you read
> here or on other forums is bound to be negative. Do we have places where
> happy customers go and praise their products or do these people actively
> seek out others who are also in love with their printers? No and not likely.
>
> Law suits against printer manufacturers (are they ALL doing this?) has
> heightened awareness. Naturally, with increased computer/printer sales more
> people will be accessing the internet. We are pretty much guaranteed to see
> more and more people complaining about how they have been wronged by their
> printer/computer manufacturer or their ISP.
>
> It also goes hand in hand with more novice users having difficulty with new
> equipment and blaming the manufacturers or accusing them of being up to no
> good. Maybe some are but, from my personal experience, I know Epson to be a
> fair company that had actually gone to great lengths (cost) to compensate
> some of the US based customers who ended up experiencing the same thing you
> did. They more or less acknowledged that some of their ink jet printers
> encountered design problems and took steps to help customers.
>
> I know from hearing from customers I dealt with that other printer
> manufacturers have their share of issues and when customers called them they
> walked away with either a good or a bad experience depending on the person
> they dealt with at the time. The support people, like myself, can have good
> days and not so good days and that can make a big difference on how they
> interact with customers who are irate, stupid, arrogant, or just plain
> ignorant (meaning they simply don't know, as opposed to stupid people who
> think they know and don't listen).
>
> You may have better experiences with other products and I certainly hope you
> do. It's not hard to find a good product, but a good warranty and good
> support can make all the difference in the world. I'd be interested in
> hearing how you do with your new product throughout it's lifecycle.
>
> Marky
>

 

[marky]

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:CFfre.1665175$6l.661979@pd7tw2no...
> Although, if you look through the archives regarding my responses to his
> unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
> Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
> have seen Epson do that gives pause.
>
> As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
> their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
> conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
> and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
> that by now.
>
> However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
> forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to try to
> resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that some
> major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
> they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
> directly to the attention of their people.
>
> Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
> the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
> secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
> more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
> exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.
>
> The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
> been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
> on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
> program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
> cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
> printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
> Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
> the marketing division must have made.
>
> Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
> design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
> because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
> brands offer better and less costly to run systems.

You have covered a number of things in this reply t you are probably
correct, particularly about Epson changing direction in some areas. I said I
was not here to defend Epson but I would without question myself as I own
them and recommend them above other products to many friends and family.

After spending over 8 years taking calls it is my experience that tells me,
for the most part, that the majority of those calls were due to end-user
errors and completely avoidable. System/software compatibility issues that
are also avoidable but that's just part of the computer industry...system
vendors pile as much of the cheap untested (or barely tested) software on a
system to entice buyers who probably never use half of it in their day to
day affairs.

There were, of course, a few issues that came up and some that had some
persistence. The C series print heads not working on some units being the
latest. Some of these
were certainly due to design and/or manufacturing issues and Epson responded
by offering exceptions to their one year warranty.

It was, again, not all units that had the problem but Epson ended up
replacing many units simply because people had heard that they could get a
free printer by claiming theirs had suffered output issues. I personally
spoke with one customer who had the script down to a "T" and records showed
he had called on a number of units that were not even his. Nice guy.

I have, incidentally, recommended people to newsgroups like this and others
without going into details. I knew there were solutions available (some I
heard of on this very newsgroup) and was not afraid to let them know they
were available. I just couldn't name names without getting myself into hot
water. If it works, it works...go for it!

To be totally honest, the issue with the 1280/870 series was limited. Early
failure may have been truly a design flaw, but why did over 90% of the units
not suffer the same issue? We regularly recieved updates on our warranty
process and one in-house report found that over 4,000 units had come back
one year for warranty replacement and all that was wrong with them was they
were out of ink.

I know for a fact that corporations do not do recalls on a product unless
it's a safety issue where lawsuits run in the billions of dollars should
bodily harm result from the design flaw. When the number of failures fall
within a predictable range it is actually justifiable to simply deal with
them on a per case basis, again if no personal harm results from that flaw.

Over all, I would say that as a company Epson has made vast improvements in
their product line and support/service but would admit that manufacturing at
the entry level is a challenge, and one that no current company has
mastered. They are what they are...inexpensive...and we all should know what
that entails.

Personally, I got tired of people screaming and Americans otherwise acting
very badly over a $40 printer. It's a sign of the times...


> Marky wrote:
>
> > Davy,
> >
> > It appears that you've had an unfortunate experience with your printer
and
> > support in the UK but, as someone who actually worked in the US support
(8
> > years experience) department for Epson, I disagree with some of the
things
> > you've mentioned here or that others bring up in this forum.
> >
> > BTW, although I left Epson support only recently I did not leave because
I
> > thought Epson was a bad company, just to find greener pastures. I'm not
here
> > to tout Epson products or to vouch for their corporate health or to
one-up
> > anyone in technical knowledge (because there are things I simply don't
know
> > that others here do). I simply missed the wonderful feeling of helping
> > others who need it...
> >
> > I won't go into details now but can assure you that most of what you
read
> > here or on other forums is bound to be negative. Do we have places where
> > happy customers go and praise their products or do these people actively
> > seek out others who are also in love with their printers? No and not
likely.
> >
> > Law suits against printer manufacturers (are they ALL doing this?) has
> > heightened awareness. Naturally, with increased computer/printer sales
more
> > people will be accessing the internet. We are pretty much guaranteed to
see
> > more and more people complaining about how they have been wronged by
their
> > printer/computer manufacturer or their ISP.
> >
> > It also goes hand in hand with more novice users having difficulty with
new
> > equipment and blaming the manufacturers or accusing them of being up to
no
> > good. Maybe some are but, from my personal experience, I know Epson to
be a
> > fair company that had actually gone to great lengths (cost) to
compensate
> > some of the US based customers who ended up experiencing the same thing
you
> > did. They more or less acknowledged that some of their ink jet printers
> > encountered design problems and took steps to help customers.
> >
> > I know from hearing from customers I dealt with that other printer
> > manufacturers have their share of issues and when customers called them
they
> > walked away with either a good or a bad experience depending on the
person
> > they dealt with at the time. The support people, like myself, can have
good
> > days and not so good days and that can make a big difference on how they
> > interact with customers who are irate, stupid, arrogant, or just plain
> > ignorant (meaning they simply don't know, as opposed to stupid people
who
> > think they know and don't listen).
> >
> > You may have better experiences with other products and I certainly hope
you
> > do. It's not hard to find a good product, but a good warranty and good
> > support can make all the difference in the world. I'd be interested in
> > hearing how you do with your new product throughout it's lifecycle.
> >
> > Marky
> >

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for replying Marky.

I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for that.

I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
this alone.

Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope, will
backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.

And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
environmental principals.

I like the printers, I am really disliking the company. It puts me in a
difficult position when people ask for recommendations. Epson could
command the marketplace if they made some major changes in their
attitude, and minor changes in their designs, and educate the public why
they were doing what they did.

In my opinion, they have taken the "easy" way out, and it will
ultimately prove to be not only destructive to their sales, but to their
clients and the environment. That's sad.

Art


Marky wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:CFfre.1665175$6l.661979@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Although, if you look through the archives regarding my responses to his
>>unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
>>Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
>>have seen Epson do that gives pause.
>>
>>As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
>>their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
>>conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
>>and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
>>that by now.
>>
>>However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
>>forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to try to
>>resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that some
>>major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
>>they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
>>directly to the attention of their people.
>>
>>Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
>>the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
>>secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
>>more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
>>exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.
>>
>>The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
>>been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
>>on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
>>program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
>>cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
>>printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
>>Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
>>the marketing division must have made.
>>
>>Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
>>design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
>>because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
>>brands offer better and less costly to run systems.
>
>
> You have covered a number of things in this reply t you are probably
> correct, particularly about Epson changing direction in some areas. I said I
> was not here to defend Epson but I would without question myself as I own
> them and recommend them above other products to many friends and family.
>
> After spending over 8 years taking calls it is my experience that tells me,
> for the most part, that the majority of those calls were due to end-user
> errors and completely avoidable. System/software compatibility issues that
> are also avoidable but that's just part of the computer industry...system
> vendors pile as much of the cheap untested (or barely tested) software on a
> system to entice buyers who probably never use half of it in their day to
> day affairs.
>
> There were, of course, a few issues that came up and some that had some
> persistence. The C series print heads not working on some units being the
> latest. Some of these
> were certainly due to design and/or manufacturing issues and Epson responded
> by offering exceptions to their one year warranty.
>
> It was, again, not all units that had the problem but Epson ended up
> replacing many units simply because people had heard that they could get a
> free printer by claiming theirs had suffered output issues. I personally
> spoke with one customer who had the script down to a "T" and records showed
> he had called on a number of units that were not even his. Nice guy.
>
> I have, incidentally, recommended people to newsgroups like this and others
> without going into details. I knew there were solutions available (some I
> heard of on this very newsgroup) and was not afraid to let them know they
> were available. I just couldn't name names without getting myself into hot
> water. If it works, it works...go for it!
>
> To be totally honest, the issue with the 1280/870 series was limited. Early
> failure may have been truly a design flaw, but why did over 90% of the units
> not suffer the same issue? We regularly recieved updates on our warranty
> process and one in-house report found that over 4,000 units had come back
> one year for warranty replacement and all that was wrong with them was they
> were out of ink.
>
> I know for a fact that corporations do not do recalls on a product unless
> it's a safety issue where lawsuits run in the billions of dollars should
> bodily harm result from the design flaw. When the number of failures fall
> within a predictable range it is actually justifiable to simply deal with
> them on a per case basis, again if no personal harm results from that flaw.
>
> Over all, I would say that as a company Epson has made vast improvements in
> their product line and support/service but would admit that manufacturing at
> the entry level is a challenge, and one that no current company has
> mastered. They are what they are...inexpensive...and we all should know what
> that entails.
>
> Personally, I got tired of people screaming and Americans otherwise acting
> very badly over a $40 printer. It's a sign of the times...
>
>
>
>>Marky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Davy,
>>>
>>>It appears that you've had an unfortunate experience with your printer
>
> and
>
>>>support in the UK but, as someone who actually worked in the US support
>
> (8
>
>>>years experience) department for Epson, I disagree with some of the
>
> things
>
>>>you've mentioned here or that others bring up in this forum.
>>>
>>>BTW, although I left Epson support only recently I did not leave because
>
> I
>
>>>thought Epson was a bad company, just to find greener pastures. I'm not
>
> here
>
>>>to tout Epson products or to vouch for their corporate health or to
>
> one-up
>
>>>anyone in technical knowledge (because there are things I simply don't
>
> know
>
>>>that others here do). I simply missed the wonderful feeling of helping
>>>others who need it...
>>>
>>>I won't go into details now but can assure you that most of what you
>
> read
>
>>>here or on other forums is bound to be negative. Do we have places where
>>>happy customers go and praise their products or do these people actively
>>>seek out others who are also in love with their printers? No and not
>
> likely.
>
>>>Law suits against printer manufacturers (are they ALL doing this?) has
>>>heightened awareness. Naturally, with increased computer/printer sales
>
> more
>
>>>people will be accessing the internet. We are pretty much guaranteed to
>
> see
>
>>>more and more people complaining about how they have been wronged by
>
> their
>
>>>printer/computer manufacturer or their ISP.
>>>
>>>It also goes hand in hand with more novice users having difficulty with
>
> new
>
>>>equipment and blaming the manufacturers or accusing them of being up to
>
> no
>
>>>good. Maybe some are but, from my personal experience, I know Epson to
>
> be a
>
>>>fair company that had actually gone to great lengths (cost) to
>
> compensate
>
>>>some of the US based customers who ended up experiencing the same thing
>
> you
>
>>>did. They more or less acknowledged that some of their ink jet printers
>>>encountered design problems and took steps to help customers.
>>>
>>>I know from hearing from customers I dealt with that other printer
>>>manufacturers have their share of issues and when customers called them
>
> they
>
>>>walked away with either a good or a bad experience depending on the
>
> person
>
>>>they dealt with at the time. The support people, like myself, can have
>
> good
>
>>>days and not so good days and that can make a big difference on how they
>>>interact with customers who are irate, stupid, arrogant, or just plain
>>>ignorant (meaning they simply don't know, as opposed to stupid people
>
> who
>
>>>think they know and don't listen).
>>>
>>>You may have better experiences with other products and I certainly hope
>
> you
>
>>>do. It's not hard to find a good product, but a good warranty and good
>>>support can make all the difference in the world. I'd be interested in
>>>hearing how you do with your new product throughout it's lifecycle.
>>>
>>>Marky
>>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Thanks for replying Marky.
>
> I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position
> in addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for
> that.
>
> I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
> and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
> regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
> designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as
> choice of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the
> right to know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the
> waste ink pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a
> consumable, and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the
> printer, and that should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it
> is actually in violation of US law and other western countries to not
> reveal this. A good lawyer could probably win a major class action
> against Epson on this alone.
>
> Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope,
> will backfire,


Not me. It keeps the whores in check. However, I would like to see
legitimate high quality BRANDED by the mfg/formulator aftermarket
prefilled carts for specific printers sold in all of the channels that
includes stores like Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Costco as well
as legitimate online retailers like costco.com, circuitcity.com etc.

> because this may also lead to more printers going into the garbage.
> Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is in
> violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.
>
> And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
> The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
> ink cartridges too costly,


The printers are not too cheap but the carts are way overpriced. They
could probably make money charging 50% for the ink and maybe just dump
the under $100 garbage printers they sell. And that should go for all
of the printer Mfg. And Canon's printhead should be no more than
$25.00. User replaceable waste pads should be under $10.00. And the
printer mfg should sell a set of cleaning carts for $2.00 per cart.

> the non-refillable cartridges, and major efforts to make the
> cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling scheme for the
> cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic environmental
> principals.
>
> I like the printers, I am really disliking the company. It puts me in
> a difficult position when people ask for recommendations. Epson could
> command the marketplace if they made some major changes in their
> attitude, and minor changes in their designs, and educate the public
> why they were doing what they did.
>
> In my opinion, they have taken the "easy" way out, and it will
> ultimately prove to be not only destructive to their sales, but to
> their clients and the environment. That's sad.
>
> Art
>
>
> Marky wrote:
>
>> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:CFfre.1665175$6l.661979@pd7tw2no...
>>
>>> Although, if you look through the archives regarding my responses to
>>> his
>>> unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
>>> Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
>>> have seen Epson do that gives pause.
>>>
>>> As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
>>> their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
>>> conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
>>> and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
>>> that by now.
>>>
>>> However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
>>> forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to
>>> try to
>>> resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that
>>> some
>>> major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
>>> they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
>>> directly to the attention of their people.
>>>
>>> Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
>>> the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
>>> secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
>>> more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
>>> exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.
>>>
>>> The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
>>> been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
>>> on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
>>> program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
>>> cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
>>> printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
>>> Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
>>> the marketing division must have made.
>>>
>>> Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
>>> design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
>>> because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
>>> brands offer better and less costly to run systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have covered a number of things in this reply t you are probably
>> correct, particularly about Epson changing direction in some areas. I
>> said I
>> was not here to defend Epson but I would without question myself as I
>> own
>> them and recommend them above other products to many friends and family.
>>
>> After spending over 8 years taking calls it is my experience that
>> tells me,
>> for the most part, that the majority of those calls were due to end-user
>> errors and completely avoidable. System/software compatibility issues
>> that
>> are also avoidable but that's just part of the computer
>> industry...system
>> vendors pile as much of the cheap untested (or barely tested)
>> software on a
>> system to entice buyers who probably never use half of it in their
>> day to
>> day affairs.
>>
>> There were, of course, a few issues that came up and some that had some
>> persistence. The C series print heads not working on some units being
>> the
>> latest. Some of these
>> were certainly due to design and/or manufacturing issues and Epson
>> responded
>> by offering exceptions to their one year warranty.
>>
>> It was, again, not all units that had the problem but Epson ended up
>> replacing many units simply because people had heard that they could
>> get a
>> free printer by claiming theirs had suffered output issues. I personally
>> spoke with one customer who had the script down to a "T" and records
>> showed
>> he had called on a number of units that were not even his. Nice guy.
>>
>> I have, incidentally, recommended people to newsgroups like this and
>> others
>> without going into details. I knew there were solutions available
>> (some I
>> heard of on this very newsgroup) and was not afraid to let them know
>> they
>> were available. I just couldn't name names without getting myself
>> into hot
>> water. If it works, it works...go for it!
>>
>> To be totally honest, the issue with the 1280/870 series was limited.
>> Early
>> failure may have been truly a design flaw, but why did over 90% of
>> the units
>> not suffer the same issue? We regularly recieved updates on our warranty
>> process and one in-house report found that over 4,000 units had come
>> back
>> one year for warranty replacement and all that was wrong with them
>> was they
>> were out of ink.
>>
>> I know for a fact that corporations do not do recalls on a product
>> unless
>> it's a safety issue where lawsuits run in the billions of dollars should
>> bodily harm result from the design flaw. When the number of failures
>> fall
>> within a predictable range it is actually justifiable to simply deal
>> with
>> them on a per case basis, again if no personal harm results from that
>> flaw.
>>
>> Over all, I would say that as a company Epson has made vast
>> improvements in
>> their product line and support/service but would admit that
>> manufacturing at
>> the entry level is a challenge, and one that no current company has
>> mastered. They are what they are...inexpensive...and we all should
>> know what
>> that entails.
>>
>> Personally, I got tired of people screaming and Americans otherwise
>> acting
>> very badly over a $40 printer. It's a sign of the times...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Marky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Davy,
>>>>
>>>> It appears that you've had an unfortunate experience with your printer
>>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>> support in the UK but, as someone who actually worked in the US
>>>> support
>>>
>>
>> (8
>>
>>>> years experience) department for Epson, I disagree with some of the
>>>
>>
>> things
>>
>>>> you've mentioned here or that others bring up in this forum.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, although I left Epson support only recently I did not leave
>>>> because
>>>
>>
>> I
>>
>>>> thought Epson was a bad company, just to find greener pastures. I'm
>>>> not
>>>
>>
>> here
>>
>>>> to tout Epson products or to vouch for their corporate health or to
>>>
>>
>> one-up
>>
>>>> anyone in technical knowledge (because there are things I simply don't
>>>
>>
>> know
>>
>>>> that others here do). I simply missed the wonderful feeling of
>>>> helping
>>>> others who need it...
>>>>
>>>> I won't go into details now but can assure you that most of what you
>>>
>>
>> read
>>
>>>> here or on other forums is bound to be negative. Do we have places
>>>> where
>>>> happy customers go and praise their products or do these people
>>>> actively
>>>> seek out others who are also in love with their printers? No and not
>>>
>>
>> likely.
>>
>>>> Law suits against printer manufacturers (are they ALL doing this?) has
>>>> heightened awareness. Naturally, with increased computer/printer sales
>>>
>>
>> more
>>
>>>> people will be accessing the internet. We are pretty much
>>>> guaranteed to
>>>
>>
>> see
>>
>>>> more and more people complaining about how they have been wronged by
>>>
>>
>> their
>>
>>>> printer/computer manufacturer or their ISP.
>>>>
>>>> It also goes hand in hand with more novice users having difficulty
>>>> with
>>>
>>
>> new
>>
>>>> equipment and blaming the manufacturers or accusing them of being
>>>> up to
>>>
>>
>> no
>>
>>>> good. Maybe some are but, from my personal experience, I know Epson to
>>>
>>
>> be a
>>
>>>> fair company that had actually gone to great lengths (cost) to
>>>
>>
>> compensate
>>
>>>> some of the US based customers who ended up experiencing the same
>>>> thing
>>>
>>
>> you
>>
>>>> did. They more or less acknowledged that some of their ink jet
>>>> printers
>>>> encountered design problems and took steps to help customers.
>>>>
>>>> I know from hearing from customers I dealt with that other printer
>>>> manufacturers have their share of issues and when customers called
>>>> them
>>>
>>
>> they
>>
>>>> walked away with either a good or a bad experience depending on the
>>>
>>
>> person
>>
>>>> they dealt with at the time. The support people, like myself, can have
>>>
>>
>> good
>>
>>>> days and not so good days and that can make a big difference on how
>>>> they
>>>> interact with customers who are irate, stupid, arrogant, or just plain
>>>> ignorant (meaning they simply don't know, as opposed to stupid people
>>>
>>
>> who
>>
>>>> think they know and don't listen).
>>>>
>>>> You may have better experiences with other products and I certainly
>>>> hope
>>>
>>
>> you
>>
>>>> do. It's not hard to find a good product, but a good warranty and good
>>>> support can make all the difference in the world. I'd be interested in
>>>> hearing how you do with your new product throughout it's lifecycle.
>>>>
>>>> Marky
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[marky]

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:9BNse.1727244$6l.944676@pd7tw2no...
> Thanks for replying Marky.
>
> I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
> addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for that.

Actually, Art, I don't feel uncomfortable about anything here. Even when I
was working for Epson tech support I would answer as honestly as I knew how.
Some of us preferred to be ignorant to the industry and that suited me fine.
I probably could have delved deeper into other printer manufacturers dirty
laundry but that's not my style. I was doing what I liked doing...helping
people.

> I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
> and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
> regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
> designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
> of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
> know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
> pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
> and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
> should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
> violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
> good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
> this alone.

Trial lawyers love stirring the pot themselves...it makes for good business
and our current 'victim' syndrome works to their advantage. I wouldn't go as
far as to say that trial lawyers are scum, but I'd have to say I don't see
them doing consumers any favors. Like the tobacco settlement, the cost is
eventually passed on to the consumer and the corporations don't feel a
thing. Big auto, big oil and big asbestos learned this long ago as well
(except big asbestos isn't allowed to sell their 'consumables' in NA any
longer...at least not openly).

> Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope, will
> backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
> garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
> in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.

I'm sure the lawyers are looking at this right now but, again, that is not
always a good thing for consumers. I thought Epson sued for patent
infringements! That only puts people out of business who sell cartridges
that look and/or are designed like the ones that Epson produces. Refill kits
shouldn't be affected, and chip program software sales should go through the
roof (again, I don't really know how that works).

> And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
> The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
> ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
> efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
> scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
> environmental principals.

I am aware that Epson started a recycle program for ink cartridges that
awards points for returned cartridges. Can't remember the organization name
but it is non-profit that pays something like $0.40 per cartridge. It's a
start, and they are partly sponsored by Epson while taking in other
manufacturers spent cartridges.

The electronic parts that go into landfill sites is another story in itself.
My recent experiences with landfill sites didn't reveal any great electronic
(printers et al) dumping but I did notice a tremendous amount of furniture,
appliances (essentially big printers with more rubber and non-biodegradeable
materials) and plastic toys in the heap.

I was involved with the ISO 90001 program and always got a kick out of it.
Here is a company that produces products that, essentially, destroy forests
(paper products) faster than you can say "my duck is sick" and they were
pushing employees to conserve paper and energy. I accepted it as a start,
but always wondered about the millions of reams of paper their products went
through every year.

Irony at it's best...


<snip>

 

[Guest]

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

Marky wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:9BNse.1727244$6l.944676@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Thanks for replying Marky.
>>
>>I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
>>addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for that.
>
>
> Actually, Art, I don't feel uncomfortable about anything here. Even when I
> was working for Epson tech support I would answer as honestly as I knew how.
> Some of us preferred to be ignorant to the industry and that suited me fine.
> I probably could have delved deeper into other printer manufacturers dirty
> laundry but that's not my style. I was doing what I liked doing...helping
> people.
>
>

I'm glad to hear that you were able to follow your muse within the
restricted company policies Epson and many other hardware manufacturers
dictate. I always found it particularly amusing when front line Epson
pre-sales people would deny the existence of a printer that was on
Epson's when site in another area of the world. I realize that some
printers might never make it to N.A. or change spec, but to deny its
existence "I'm sorry but no such printer exists with that model number"
was a bit humorous.


>>I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
>>and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
>>regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
>>designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
>>of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
>>know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
>>pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
>>and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
>>should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
>>violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
>>good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
>>this alone.
>
>
> Trial lawyers love stirring the pot themselves...it makes for good business
> and our current 'victim' syndrome works to their advantage. I wouldn't go as
> far as to say that trial lawyers are scum, but I'd have to say I don't see
> them doing consumers any favors. Like the tobacco settlement, the cost is
> eventually passed on to the consumer and the corporations don't feel a
> thing. Big auto, big oil and big asbestos learned this long ago as well
> (except big asbestos isn't allowed to sell their 'consumables' in NA any
> longer...at least not openly).
>

Trial lawyers ar principally out for make money, just like more other
businesses, and sometimes they also do some good. I have been involve
din numerous class acts and yes, overall the lawyers walk away with the
majority of the booty, and sometimes the client either gets little of
less than little as the corporation writes off the fines as a business
loss, or raises prices to compensate for the loses. But, since the
government really does its job of enforcing legislation and law, it
leaves few other choices. None the less, not informing people of the
waste ink pad limitation is wrong and needs to be dealt with somehow and
Epson sure ain't hearing me, so what choice is there but litigation.

Further, companies DO victimize clients, way too often, and it is often
not be mistake, but by design. Don't tell me Epson didn't sit down with
their engineers and their MBAs and figure out how to manipulate the
business model. They didn't stumble upon these "solutions" they worked
them out and how to profit by them.

>>Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope, will
>>backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
>>garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
>>in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.
>
>
> I'm sure the lawyers are looking at this right now but, again, that is not
> always a good thing for consumers. I thought Epson sued for patent
> infringements! That only puts people out of business who sell cartridges
> that look and/or are designed like the ones that Epson produces. Refill kits
> shouldn't be affected, and chip program software sales should go through the
> roof (again, I don't really know how that works).
>

Epson has done everything in their power to manufacturer a system where
only their patented cartridges will work. In so doing they limit the
ability for 3rd parties to come up with working consumable products.
Luckily, some smart engineers are just a few paces behind Epson's own
and figuring out ways to get around patent restrictions to make
compatible answers. It would be one thing if Epson was making designs
to solve real problems., but at least half and likely more of the design
"features" are about protecting their ink market. Worse still, some are
absolutely about protecting their ink market to the determine of the
functionality of the products.


>
>>And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
>>The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
>>ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
>>efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
>>scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
>>environmental principals.
>
>
> I am aware that Epson started a recycle program for ink cartridges that
> awards points for returned cartridges. Can't remember the organization name
> but it is non-profit that pays something like $0.40 per cartridge. It's a
> start, and they are partly sponsored by Epson while taking in other
> manufacturers spent cartridges.
>

Yes, that's the superficial side of it, (and I think the actual value
per cartridges i closer to .04 cents than 40), but you have to dig
deeper to find the fraud. The company Epson has contracted to do this
program had an established program of ink and toner recycling before
Epson came along. The company has non-profits, like schools, collect
cartridges for which they pay an equivalent to cash amount in points.
The company then allows the organizations to "buy" certain goods for
these points from them. The value of the points is not very high, and
gives a somewhat strange exchange rate, since they tend to use old
values for old technology. They also offer OEM ink cartridges from the
same companies they collect for, which I am sure cost them very little,
but that's all "above board" as far as it goes.

What isn't is specifically with Epson cartridges. The company actually
restricts how many Epson cartridges that can be shipped per mailing, and
only Epson has this limitation. Why? Because unlike all the other
cartridges, the Epson's are not reused or recycled. The others are sold
for refurbishing and refilled or at worse, some plastics and metals are
separated are recycled into other goods.

Not Epson's. Epson's cartridges are incinerated "in an environmentally
safe manner". Now, the fact that there really isn't a safe way to
incinerate a device that is made up of various plastics, rubbers and
metals and which has volatile solvents and potentially toxic colorants
in it, is one thing, but Epson implies these incinerators produce
"green" energy!!!


So, the truth is, Epson cartridges and their toxic waste components, are
burned into trash, polluting the air and the heat may be drawn off for
some use (maybe to shred the plastic, if they even do that?)

That's a very strange use of the term "recycling". I suppose burning
down a forest is also recycling, because it heats the planet, and
releases tons of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere for "reuse",
and makes all that land available for new trees to start growing.

> The electronic parts that go into landfill sites is another story in itself.
> My recent experiences with landfill sites didn't reveal any great electronic
> (printers et al) dumping but I did notice a tremendous amount of furniture,
> appliances (essentially big printers with more rubber and non-biodegradeable
> materials) and plastic toys in the heap.
>

That's because everyone who has a printer has a few dead or unused ones
in their basement of closet, feeling guilty about tossing them, but not
using them. Eventually those, and literally millions of tons of other
computer related technology will have to go somewhere. Right now the
majority is in storage, or the e-garbage has been shipped off to the
developing world for them to try to deal with, not as working computers,
but as reclaimable where they don't have the same labor costs, or water
and air quality legislation, so they burn off plastic insulation from
wires to recycle the copper, for instance. This, in spite of many
countries being signatories to prohibition from those exact types of
exports.


> I was involved with the ISO 90001 program and always got a kick out of it.
> Here is a company that produces products that, essentially, destroy forests
> (paper products) faster than you can say "my duck is sick" and they were
> pushing employees to conserve paper and energy. I accepted it as a start,
> but always wondered about the millions of reams of paper their products went
> through every year.
>
> Irony at it's best...
>

A lot of paper is made from recycled fiber now and almost all has some
recycled components. In most countries all the paper could be fully
recycled if the systems and awareness existed. I'm not suggesting paper
should be wasted, but it's an almost completely recyclable product. The
same cannot be said about ink cartridges, or printers, for instance.


Art

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>
>
> Marky wrote:
>
>> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:9BNse.1727244$6l.944676@pd7tw2no...
>>
>>> Thanks for replying Marky.
>>>
>>> I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
>>> addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for
>>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, Art, I don't feel uncomfortable about anything here. Even
>> when I
>> was working for Epson tech support I would answer as honestly as I
>> knew how.
>> Some of us preferred to be ignorant to the industry and that suited
>> me fine.
>> I probably could have delved deeper into other printer manufacturers
>> dirty
>> laundry but that's not my style. I was doing what I liked
>> doing...helping
>> people.
>>
>>
>
> I'm glad to hear that you were able to follow your muse within the
> restricted company policies Epson and many other hardware
> manufacturers dictate. I always found it particularly amusing when
> front line Epson pre-sales people would deny the existence of a
> printer that was on Epson's when site in another area of the world. I
> realize that some printers might never make it to N.A. or change spec,
> but to deny its existence "I'm sorry but no such printer exists with
> that model number" was a bit humorous.
>
>
>>> I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
>>> and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
>>> regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
>>> designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
>>> of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
>>> know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
>>> pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
>>> and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
>>> should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
>>> violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
>>> good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
>>> this alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Trial lawyers love stirring the pot themselves...it makes for good
>> business
>> and our current 'victim' syndrome works to their advantage. I
>> wouldn't go as
>> far as to say that trial lawyers are scum, but I'd have to say I
>> don't see
>> them doing consumers any favors. Like the tobacco settlement, the
>> cost is
>> eventually passed on to the consumer and the corporations don't feel a
>> thing. Big auto, big oil and big asbestos learned this long ago as well
>> (except big asbestos isn't allowed to sell their 'consumables' in NA any
>> longer...at least not openly).
>>
>
> Trial lawyers ar principally out for make money, just like more other
> businesses, and sometimes they also do some good. I have been involve
> din numerous class acts and yes, overall the lawyers walk away with
> the majority of the booty, and sometimes the client either gets little
> of less than little as the corporation writes off the fines as a
> business loss, or raises prices to compensate for the loses. But,
> since the government really does its job of enforcing legislation and
> law, it leaves few other choices. None the less, not informing people
> of the waste ink pad limitation is wrong and needs to be dealt with
> somehow and Epson sure ain't hearing me, so what choice is there but
> litigation.
>
> Further, companies DO victimize clients, way too often, and it is
> often not be mistake, but by design. Don't tell me Epson didn't sit
> down with their engineers and their MBAs and figure out how to
> manipulate the business model. They didn't stumble upon these
> "solutions" they worked them out and how to profit by them.


While I am not in favor of all of the abuses directed at the consumer by
these mfg, it is well within their right to determine how to maximize
their profits any legal way possible.

>
>>> Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope,
>>> will
>>> backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
>>> garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
>>> in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure the lawyers are looking at this right now but, again, that
>> is not
>> always a good thing for consumers. I thought Epson sued for patent
>> infringements! That only puts people out of business who sell cartridges
>> that look and/or are designed like the ones that Epson produces.
>> Refill kits
>> shouldn't be affected, and chip program software sales should go
>> through the
>> roof (again, I don't really know how that works).
>>
>
> Epson has done everything in their power to manufacturer a system
> where only their patented cartridges will work. In so doing they
> limit the ability for 3rd parties to come up with working consumable
> products. Luckily, some smart engineers are just a few paces behind
> Epson's own and figuring out ways to get around patent restrictions to
> make compatible answers. It would be one thing if Epson was making
> designs to solve real problems., but at least half and likely more of
> the design "features" are about protecting their ink market. Worse
> still, some are absolutely about protecting their ink market to the
> determine of the functionality of the products.
>
>
>>
>>> And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
>>> The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
>>> ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
>>> efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
>>> scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
>>> environmental principals.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am aware that Epson started a recycle program for ink cartridges that
>> awards points for returned cartridges. Can't remember the
>> organization name
>> but it is non-profit that pays something like $0.40 per cartridge.
>> It's a
>> start, and they are partly sponsored by Epson while taking in other
>> manufacturers spent cartridges.
>>
>
> Yes, that's the superficial side of it, (and I think the actual value
> per cartridges i closer to .04 cents than 40), but you have to dig
> deeper to find the fraud. The company Epson has contracted to do this
> program had an established program of ink and toner recycling before
> Epson came along. The company has non-profits, like schools, collect
> cartridges for which they pay an equivalent to cash amount in points.
> The company then allows the organizations to "buy" certain goods for
> these points from them. The value of the points is not very high, and
> gives a somewhat strange exchange rate, since they tend to use old
> values for old technology. They also offer OEM ink cartridges from
> the same companies they collect for, which I am sure cost them very
> little, but that's all "above board" as far as it goes.
>
> What isn't is specifically with Epson cartridges. The company
> actually restricts how many Epson cartridges that can be shipped per
> mailing, and only Epson has this limitation. Why? Because unlike all
> the other cartridges, the Epson's are not reused or recycled. The
> others are sold for refurbishing and refilled or at worse, some
> plastics and metals are separated are recycled into other goods.
>
> Not Epson's. Epson's cartridges are incinerated "in an
> environmentally safe manner". Now, the fact that there really isn't a
> safe way to incinerate a device that is made up of various plastics,
> rubbers and metals and which has volatile solvents and potentially
> toxic colorants in it, is one thing, but Epson implies these
> incinerators produce "green" energy!!!
>
>
> So, the truth is, Epson cartridges and their toxic waste components,
> are burned into trash, polluting the air and the heat may be drawn off
> for some use (maybe to shred the plastic, if they even do that?)
>
> That's a very strange use of the term "recycling". I suppose burning
> down a forest is also recycling, because it heats the planet, and
> releases tons of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere for "reuse",
> and makes all that land available for new trees to start growing.
>
>> The electronic parts that go into landfill sites is another story in
>> itself.
>> My recent experiences with landfill sites didn't reveal any great
>> electronic
>> (printers et al) dumping but I did notice a tremendous amount of
>> furniture,
>> appliances (essentially big printers with more rubber and
>> non-biodegradeable
>> materials) and plastic toys in the heap.
>>
>
> That's because everyone who has a printer has a few dead or unused
> ones in their basement of closet, feeling guilty about tossing them,
> but not using them. Eventually those, and literally millions of tons
> of other computer related technology will have to go somewhere. Right
> now the majority is in storage, or the e-garbage has been shipped off
> to the developing world for them to try to deal with, not as working
> computers, but as reclaimable where they don't have the same labor
> costs, or water and air quality legislation, so they burn off plastic
> insulation from wires to recycle the copper, for instance. This, in
> spite of many countries being signatories to prohibition from those
> exact types of exports.
>
>
>> I was involved with the ISO 90001 program and always got a kick out
>> of it.
>> Here is a company that produces products that, essentially, destroy
>> forests
>> (paper products) faster than you can say "my duck is sick" and they were
>> pushing employees to conserve paper and energy. I accepted it as a
>> start,
>> but always wondered about the millions of reams of paper their
>> products went
>> through every year.
>>
>> Irony at it's best...
>>
>
> A lot of paper is made from recycled fiber now and almost all has some
> recycled components. In most countries all the paper could be fully
> recycled if the systems and awareness existed. I'm not suggesting
> paper should be wasted, but it's an almost completely recyclable
> product. The same cannot be said about ink cartridges, or printers,
> for instance.
>
>
> Art

 

[marky]

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

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:QZ8ue.69809$El.825@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Marky wrote:
>
> > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:9BNse.1727244$6l.944676@pd7tw2no...
> >
> >>Thanks for replying Marky.
> >>
> >>I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
> >>addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for
that.
> >
> >
> > Actually, Art, I don't feel uncomfortable about anything here. Even when
I
> > was working for Epson tech support I would answer as honestly as I knew
how.
> > Some of us preferred to be ignorant to the industry and that suited me
fine.
> > I probably could have delved deeper into other printer manufacturers
dirty
> > laundry but that's not my style. I was doing what I liked
doing...helping
> > people.
> >
> >
>
> I'm glad to hear that you were able to follow your muse within the
> restricted company policies Epson and many other hardware manufacturers
> dictate. I always found it particularly amusing when front line Epson
> pre-sales people would deny the existence of a printer that was on
> Epson's when site in another area of the world. I realize that some
> printers might never make it to N.A. or change spec, but to deny its
> existence "I'm sorry but no such printer exists with that model number"
> was a bit humorous.

That's not really a good answer. I'd had a few calls on non-NA models but it
was quite simple to answer...if they were not manufactured in NA we don't
support them and if anyone needed information on them they could visit the
host country website. They may or may not be the same as products sold here
and we really didn't know. Many times products were released in the US and
support didn't know about it till they were actually getting calls on them
or shortly before. There were 'heads up" memos sent and we had to scramble
to find the information. But there were also times when products were not
released and we had to deal with customers demanding to know the details and
would not believe that we didn't have information.

> > Trial lawyers love stirring the pot themselves...it makes for good
business
> > and our current 'victim' syndrome works to their advantage. I wouldn't
go as
> > far as to say that trial lawyers are scum, but I'd have to say I don't
see
> > them doing consumers any favors. Like the tobacco settlement, the cost
is
> > eventually passed on to the consumer and the corporations don't feel a
> > thing. Big auto, big oil and big asbestos learned this long ago as well
> > (except big asbestos isn't allowed to sell their 'consumables' in NA any
> > longer...at least not openly).
> >
>
> Trial lawyers ar principally out for make money, just like more other
> businesses, and sometimes they also do some good. I have been involve
> din numerous class acts and yes, overall the lawyers walk away with the
> majority of the booty, and sometimes the client either gets little of
> less than little as the corporation writes off the fines as a business
> loss, or raises prices to compensate for the loses. But, since the
> government really does its job of enforcing legislation and law, it
> leaves few other choices. None the less, not informing people of the
> waste ink pad limitation is wrong and needs to be dealt with somehow and
> Epson sure ain't hearing me, so what choice is there but litigation.

Not sure if they're working on that now, but I really think that Epson would
have thought out the fine points long ago. Either that or they simply sit
back and wait for the litigation and then tie it up and drag it out till
they do or they have the game plan down.

> Further, companies DO victimize clients, way too often, and it is often
> not be mistake, but by design. Don't tell me Epson didn't sit down with
> their engineers and their MBAs and figure out how to manipulate the
> business model. They didn't stumble upon these "solutions" they worked
> them out and how to profit by them.

That could well be, but so do many other companies and we seem to tolerate
it...Mickey D's has been pumping our bodies full of salt, sugar and fat
levels carefully manipulated to get us (those who eat there) to keep coming
back for more...Big auto has designed vehicles with a limited range and a
limited tank that ensures that we keep stopping in at Big Oil for more more
more...and who can compete with either?

Bicycles are not as popular as cars these days...even though they would
reduce the overall pollution and get people in shape so that they would both
live longer and fret less...we could probably toss the whole recycle program
in the waste basket and live happily ever after if we could remove auto
pollution from the environment.

> Epson has done everything in their power to manufacturer a system where
> only their patented cartridges will work. In so doing they limit the
> ability for 3rd parties to come up with working consumable products.

Probably true, but I don't think that is totally wrong. Print heads failing
and waste ink pad engineering are probably bigger sins but, again, I would
imagine they are addressing those issues.

> Luckily, some smart engineers are just a few paces behind Epson's own
> and figuring out ways to get around patent restrictions to make
> compatible answers. It would be one thing if Epson was making designs
> to solve real problems., but at least half and likely more of the design
> "features" are about protecting their ink market. Worse still, some are
> absolutely about protecting their ink market to the determine of the
> functionality of the products.

I realize that this is an issue of third party providers being put out more
than anything else. If there are people who have time to sit around and
figure out how to beat the Epson system so they can capitalize on their
design then why are they not simply making their own printers that work
better and use their own inks?


> Yes, that's the superficial side of it, (and I think the actual value
> per cartridges i closer to .04 cents than 40), but you have to dig
> deeper to find the fraud. The company Epson has contracted to do this
> program had an established program of ink and toner recycling before
> Epson came along. The company has non-profits, like schools, collect
> cartridges for which they pay an equivalent to cash amount in points.
> The company then allows the organizations to "buy" certain goods for
> these points from them. The value of the points is not very high, and
> gives a somewhat strange exchange rate, since they tend to use old
> values for old technology. They also offer OEM ink cartridges from the
> same companies they collect for, which I am sure cost them very little,
> but that's all "above board" as far as it goes.
>
> What isn't is specifically with Epson cartridges. The company actually
> restricts how many Epson cartridges that can be shipped per mailing, and
> only Epson has this limitation. Why? Because unlike all the other
> cartridges, the Epson's are not reused or recycled. The others are sold
> for refurbishing and refilled or at worse, some plastics and metals are
> separated are recycled into other goods.

I'm not aware of all the details but, again, as far as I can see it is a
start. I realize that the other manufacturers cartridges can be refilled but
how many people actually do that and how many simply toss them in the basket
to buy more? I know that the Epson market share is up but they are not
monopolizing the printer/ink cartridge consumption anywhere. That means that
there are probably millions of non-Epson ink cartridges making their way
into landfill sites all around the world.

It would be interesting to know, but I really doubt that anyone has any
figures that could point out clearly that our waste programs are not
handling millions of non-epson cartridges simply because people in NA are
either not educated on the benefits of refilling inks or because they can't
be bothered. I would have to say that I am somewhat of an exception here in
Canada because I actually spend several hours every month bothering myself
with recycling.

Aside from my understanding that the recycling program in Canada is a farce
(and I can only add one and one together to know that the US is a bigger
joke in this regards), I still do it because of my personal ideology.
Knowing how most people in NA treat their environment it's amazing that
people here would decry the environmental dealings of any corporation. We
are, apparently, working towards better programs and pushing compliance but
the big picture shows we are far from being a civilization that can claim to
be 'aware' of the impact that our 'consumerism' has on the planet. The
dollar always wins...and we, as a part of this ecosystem, are offensive by
nature.

> Not Epson's. Epson's cartridges are incinerated "in an environmentally
> safe manner". Now, the fact that there really isn't a safe way to
> incinerate a device that is made up of various plastics, rubbers and
> metals and which has volatile solvents and potentially toxic colorants
> in it, is one thing, but Epson implies these incinerators produce
> "green" energy!!!

I haven't been following the hype. It is a far more complex issue that does
not allow us to lay blame on any one company for their shortcomings
concerning the environment. We, as consumers, are the ones who get caught up
in the hype. We tend to froth at the mouth till we get the biggest and best
products our budgets can afford (let's not talk about the national debt and
how credit is destroying our lives) without understanding the fine points
involved...like how does this product really affect my life even though I
can do with it what I am told I can do...by the hype...

Until we learn that we can live without a printer, car, computer, air
conditioning, and any of the many other luxuries that contribute to the
overall contamination of this tiny enclosed space we call home, or until we
are producing truly safe and environmentally friendly products, I really
doubt that any number of law suits are going to put a dent in the actual
problems of our environment.


> So, the truth is, Epson cartridges and their toxic waste components, are
> burned into trash, polluting the air and the heat may be drawn off for
> some use (maybe to shred the plastic, if they even do that?)

I'd have to admit they could probably work on that a bit, regardless of what
I said above.

> That's because everyone who has a printer has a few dead or unused ones
> in their basement of closet, feeling guilty about tossing them, but not
> using them. Eventually those, and literally millions of tons of other
> computer related technology will have to go somewhere. Right now the
> majority is in storage, or the e-garbage has been shipped off to the
> developing world for them to try to deal with, not as working computers,
> but as reclaimable where they don't have the same labor costs, or water
> and air quality legislation, so they burn off plastic insulation from
> wires to recycle the copper, for instance. This, in spite of many
> countries being signatories to prohibition from those exact types of
> exports.

Unfortunately I am not aware of where our egarbage goes so I'd have to take
your word for it. I had read only recently that someone had figured out a
way to recycle some of it but I don't have the article handy and cannot
remember the details offhand.


> A lot of paper is made from recycled fiber now and almost all has some
> recycled components. In most countries all the paper could be fully
> recycled if the systems and awareness existed. I'm not suggesting paper
> should be wasted, but it's an almost completely recyclable product. The
> same cannot be said about ink cartridges, or printers, for instance.

True. Many years ago I worked in the paper industry (corrugated) and was
enlightened about the paper recycling process. It was, of course, greatly
exagerated about how safe and clean the whole thing was since the
environment was becoming an item. Times have changed since then, I'd hope,
but far too often we are presented with eye-opening details that tend to
smash our hopes of ever being truly a 'safe' bunch of inhabitants.

We do have much to learn about harmony and balance and hopefully we learn it
before we inflict too much damage on ourselves.

Marky