Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<ciS6d.6808$Du2.1384@edtnps89>...
> Anoni Moose wrote:
>
> > ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >>If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
> >>see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
> >>matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
> >>reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
> >>to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
> >>Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
> >>Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
> >>and already illegal in the EU.
> >
> >
> > Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
> > You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
> > you'd be willing to do so. 🙂 🙂
>
> Very cute... The Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts in the US makes it
> illegal for a company to tie consumables to a product sale. For some
> odd reason, no one has acted upon this to deal with printer companies
> yet. I think it is just a matter of time...
Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
think a court case would be tough to do.
> What killed the ALPS printers were problems with banding, and other
> output quality issues,
Mine didn't band any more often than the epson color inkjet that
I had in the same timeframe. Vast majority of prints had no banding
even if some did. And those which didn't were spectacular in
quality compared to inkjets of the same vintage (my
ALPS printer is the MD1300).
> unavailability of their consumable ribbons, the
I found that only a problem after the printers were discontinued
about four or five years ago. As recent as a year or so ago,
they still had'm on the shelf at our local Fry's. I only
switched to an inkjet early this year (the i9900) after having
used the ALPS printer for something like ten years (seemed
that long anyway).
> need for special and limited type of paper,
I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
see much difference in practice. 🙂
> cost per print, and customer
> service problems.
Dye-subs had the reputation for being very expensive, but the
ALPS ones weren't. Mine wasn't. Price per printed page was similar to that
of inkjets of its time. Other brands of dyesubs were VERY
inefficient in the way they used ribbons and such, but the
ALPS wasn't bad. Biggest problem is that the printer itself
was very expensive. Runtime costs weren't. And only the dye-sub
mode needed the special paper (photo prints). For non-dyesub mode
printing, any old typewriter paper worked fine. I heard that
other brands of dye-sub paper (such as Tek's) would work, but
that wasn't much help.
Service I don't know about, my MD1300 still works fine now. Only
problem is that it indeed is hard getting supplies now (can be
gotten, but fewer internet sources all the time). Also inkjets
have finally gotten good enough to compete with the 600 dpi
ALPS dyesub and win (particularly with gamut, because the ALPS
dyesub really was a pigment-sub despite it's name).
> >>It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
> >>all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
> >>reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
> >>inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
> >>landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
> >>running out of them.
> >
> >
> > You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
> > technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
> > don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
> > if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
> > they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
> > model to compete?
> >
> >
>
> That's hardly what he's saying, that's what you wish to hear. Most
> advances in the last 5-7 years in inkjet technology have been:
>
> 1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
> 2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
> sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
> instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
> 3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
> generation
You're saying that they probably can make a 0.01 picoliter droplet
printer now that works great, doesn't clog, but they're holding it
from manufacturing on purpose? Epson's now getting rid of the photo-xx
inks when they finally got a droplet small enough in production
was to increase ink sales?.
In a business where there's not much competition, I'd agree that
they may do that in an instant. And maybe Epson who has owned the
photo printing market until recently had been doing that. But when
there's competition (as Canon is providing now), I can't see them
playing that game.
Those improvements that aren't enough in one "generation" of product
aren't really being complained about. I think the subject was
the destroying of the earth and pocketbooks by filling it with thrown
away product "for no reason" other than generating sales. Well, the
only generation of sales that causes the tossing of an old printer is one
that's major enough to make the buyer do just that.
If you're saying that printers are such high volume consumer products
that the economics are that such replacement is the only practical way
to fix things (rather than repair), then yes that's true. But that's
been true for at least fify years if not longer. Even back in the
transistor radio days of the 50's/60's folk complained that new ones
were cheaper than having a broken one fixed. The problem isn't that
the fixing is so expensive, it's a product of having the incredible
great price of the new one being so chaap due to the mass manufacturing
and mass distribution of it. That economic reality makes the availability
of repair even more expensive because nobody will want to do it other than
for warrantee repair (where costs to the mfgr is hidden).
> Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
> previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
> no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
> that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
> manuals and special tools.
Yes, the reality of mass economics kicks in, and it's the pits. Doing
things in mass mass quanities, makes for incredible product for
unbeliveable low prices. Unfortunately that produces expectations
that everything can be done for a proportional low cost. Repair and
replacement of a part may cost more than a new printer. It's not
a ripoff, it's just the economics of life. It's math. When it's
not doable economically, then it's usually not done.
> >
> >>In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
> >>printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
> >>like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
> >>reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
> >>Canon without being unreasonable to them.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
> > their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
> > the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
> > for Mercedes cars.
>
> He's speaking about a replacement part and it's value relative to the
> whole product. Everyone knows Rolls Royce is an overpriced car. You
> pay for the name and possibly, the service. They break down just like
> other brands, maybe even moreso. I think you'd be just a bit annoyed if
> every car company charged the same price Rolls did, or if a new engine
> for a car cost as much as the whole car did (before the cost of the
> servicing even was added in).
Yeah, I'll admit that I went a bit too far to make a point, but I think
the point being made was still proper.
If they sell 100,000 printers a year, and it sells for $100, and
they also sell 100,000 printer heads a year separately, then I'd
expect the printer head to cost a good deal less than $100. If
they are selling 500 printer heads a year, I'd not be surprised if
it costed the consumer $75. Cost to deliver the part isn't
just the manufacturing cost. If that printer head is one now made
ONLY for replacement purposes for that printer (only manufacturing
a year's worth in a batch of 500 units), I'd not be surprised
if it costed more than $100 retail. I say this not based on observation of
what happens, but in terms of my expectations of how much it costs
to provide the goods at the retail level worldwide including the stocking
of the parts, and the special ordering for parts in onsie quantity
rather than in large lots where the overhead of distribution is
amortized over a larger quantity than one.
Mike
>
> Art
>
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message news:<ciS6d.6808$Du2.1384@edtnps89>...
> Anoni Moose wrote:
>
> > ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >>If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
> >>see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
> >>matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
> >>reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
> >>to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
> >>Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
> >>Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
> >>and already illegal in the EU.
> >
> >
> > Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
> > You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
> > you'd be willing to do so. 🙂 🙂
>
> Very cute... The Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts in the US makes it
> illegal for a company to tie consumables to a product sale. For some
> odd reason, no one has acted upon this to deal with printer companies
> yet. I think it is just a matter of time...
Maybe, but maybe not. There is a free market in the consumables.
There are third party inks and paper companies. So the tie isn't
forcing printer buyers to buy those from the manufacturers. I
think a court case would be tough to do.
> What killed the ALPS printers were problems with banding, and other
> output quality issues,
Mine didn't band any more often than the epson color inkjet that
I had in the same timeframe. Vast majority of prints had no banding
even if some did. And those which didn't were spectacular in
quality compared to inkjets of the same vintage (my
ALPS printer is the MD1300).
> unavailability of their consumable ribbons, the
I found that only a problem after the printers were discontinued
about four or five years ago. As recent as a year or so ago,
they still had'm on the shelf at our local Fry's. I only
switched to an inkjet early this year (the i9900) after having
used the ALPS printer for something like ten years (seemed
that long anyway).
> need for special and limited type of paper,
I'm pretty much stuck to Canon's Photo Paper Pro now. Don't
see much difference in practice. 🙂
> cost per print, and customer
> service problems.
Dye-subs had the reputation for being very expensive, but the
ALPS ones weren't. Mine wasn't. Price per printed page was similar to that
of inkjets of its time. Other brands of dyesubs were VERY
inefficient in the way they used ribbons and such, but the
ALPS wasn't bad. Biggest problem is that the printer itself
was very expensive. Runtime costs weren't. And only the dye-sub
mode needed the special paper (photo prints). For non-dyesub mode
printing, any old typewriter paper worked fine. I heard that
other brands of dye-sub paper (such as Tek's) would work, but
that wasn't much help.
Service I don't know about, my MD1300 still works fine now. Only
problem is that it indeed is hard getting supplies now (can be
gotten, but fewer internet sources all the time). Also inkjets
have finally gotten good enough to compete with the 600 dpi
ALPS dyesub and win (particularly with gamut, because the ALPS
dyesub really was a pigment-sub despite it's name).
> >>It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
> >>all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
> >>reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
> >>inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
> >>landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
> >>running out of them.
> >
> >
> > You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
> > technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
> > don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
> > if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
> > they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
> > model to compete?
> >
> >
>
> That's hardly what he's saying, that's what you wish to hear. Most
> advances in the last 5-7 years in inkjet technology have been:
>
> 1) incremental and evolutionary, not revolutionary
> 2) have mainly been advantageous to the printer companies in terms of
> sales of ink or other consumables (introduction of light dye load inks
> instead of making them deliver a small enough dot size, etc)
> 3) weren't enough, in themselves to force people to upgrade to the next
> generation
You're saying that they probably can make a 0.01 picoliter droplet
printer now that works great, doesn't clog, but they're holding it
from manufacturing on purpose? Epson's now getting rid of the photo-xx
inks when they finally got a droplet small enough in production
was to increase ink sales?.
In a business where there's not much competition, I'd agree that
they may do that in an instant. And maybe Epson who has owned the
photo printing market until recently had been doing that. But when
there's competition (as Canon is providing now), I can't see them
playing that game.
Those improvements that aren't enough in one "generation" of product
aren't really being complained about. I think the subject was
the destroying of the earth and pocketbooks by filling it with thrown
away product "for no reason" other than generating sales. Well, the
only generation of sales that causes the tossing of an old printer is one
that's major enough to make the buyer do just that.
If you're saying that printers are such high volume consumer products
that the economics are that such replacement is the only practical way
to fix things (rather than repair), then yes that's true. But that's
been true for at least fify years if not longer. Even back in the
transistor radio days of the 50's/60's folk complained that new ones
were cheaper than having a broken one fixed. The problem isn't that
the fixing is so expensive, it's a product of having the incredible
great price of the new one being so chaap due to the mass manufacturing
and mass distribution of it. That economic reality makes the availability
of repair even more expensive because nobody will want to do it other than
for warrantee repair (where costs to the mfgr is hidden).
> Advancement can be accomplished in a manner which does not leave the
> previous owners with obsolete machines due to lack of available parts,
> no drivers, or non-user serviceable parts that failed or consumables
> that were very costly or not accessible for replacement without service
> manuals and special tools.
Yes, the reality of mass economics kicks in, and it's the pits. Doing
things in mass mass quanities, makes for incredible product for
unbeliveable low prices. Unfortunately that produces expectations
that everything can be done for a proportional low cost. Repair and
replacement of a part may cost more than a new printer. It's not
a ripoff, it's just the economics of life. It's math. When it's
not doable economically, then it's usually not done.
> >
> >>In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
> >>printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
> >>like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
> >>reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
> >>Canon without being unreasonable to them.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
> > their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
> > the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
> > for Mercedes cars.
>
> He's speaking about a replacement part and it's value relative to the
> whole product. Everyone knows Rolls Royce is an overpriced car. You
> pay for the name and possibly, the service. They break down just like
> other brands, maybe even moreso. I think you'd be just a bit annoyed if
> every car company charged the same price Rolls did, or if a new engine
> for a car cost as much as the whole car did (before the cost of the
> servicing even was added in).
Yeah, I'll admit that I went a bit too far to make a point, but I think
the point being made was still proper.
If they sell 100,000 printers a year, and it sells for $100, and
they also sell 100,000 printer heads a year separately, then I'd
expect the printer head to cost a good deal less than $100. If
they are selling 500 printer heads a year, I'd not be surprised if
it costed the consumer $75. Cost to deliver the part isn't
just the manufacturing cost. If that printer head is one now made
ONLY for replacement purposes for that printer (only manufacturing
a year's worth in a batch of 500 units), I'd not be surprised
if it costed more than $100 retail. I say this not based on observation of
what happens, but in terms of my expectations of how much it costs
to provide the goods at the retail level worldwide including the stocking
of the parts, and the special ordering for parts in onsie quantity
rather than in large lots where the overhead of distribution is
amortized over a larger quantity than one.
Mike
>
> Art
>
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram