A caution on Canon printers

G

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art


Andrew Mayo wrote:

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

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

Mike
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

Guest

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

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

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

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

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurence
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

Guest

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

PC Medic wrote:

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

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

Art


>
>
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

Guest

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

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

<snip>

I agree. The QY6-0043 print head for my Canon i950 was $92.21 US plus
tax/shipping. Thats more than a lot of new printers.
 
G

Guest

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

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

Eugene

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2004
205
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

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

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

Laurence

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

Eugene
 
G

Guest

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

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


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

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

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, I can only reiterate caution over the purchase of
Canon's consumer products, if they entail the purchase of end-user
replaceable consumables. This would especially apply to laser
printers, for example.
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

ah
 
G

Guest

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

PC Medic wrote:

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

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

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

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

Art
 
G

Guest

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

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

Otherwise, here in the USA, add to the junk pile and buy any <$40 inkjet
printer, and when the cartridges run dry, buy another new printer for
the set of black & color cartridges that cost the same as that new printer.
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Mike

P.S. - Keep in mind there are costs other than parts cost when
doing business. A service-oriented company can easily go
bankrupt even though their "parts cost" is zero and all
revenue they get being "profit".
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

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

Wovld he get a spare printhead cheaper than anyone else?

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

Neither disposal nor refvrbishing will do mvch help here.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Martin
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

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

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

Well, now they do. Sovnds good, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art

Martin Travtmann wrote:

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

Guest

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

Anoni Moose wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Art

>
>
> Mike
>
 
G

Guest

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

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

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

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

Guest

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

PC Medic wrote:

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

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

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

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

Art
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY