Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Mar 25, 2017.
While a legitimate issue that could have been solved with "non specific parts void warranty"
let's cut them off at the pass.
that way we will never be subject to printer cartels and their expensive as balls inks and toners.
they work great in my printer. and 20 bucks in ink got me a whole box of cartridges, 24 i think it was, instead of one.
Why is knock off ink damaging printers? That is the question I have. Imagine if you design a car and for whatever reason if you do not use a specific brand of tire your car has some failure that requires service. Also how does one know if the damage to the printer was not a purposeful engineering feat to force people to use first party cartridges? I view this case very similar to cars, a car maker cannot void your entire car warranty if you put any aftermarket part in unless they can show that part caused the damage. This is how printers and really ANY device should be treated legally.
For me personally I find printers to be really a pain, they break down a lot, ink is expensive and my solution has been to just try to not use them at all. I read online, I try to fill out and turn in documents through email, I use MS onenote to take notes and my phone to keep them on me. All in all I find my life a lot easier not just because of not needing printers but because there is simply far less paper filling up my lifes file cabinets, desks and every place in the house. 1 computer and a cloud server can store millions of pieces of paper worth of information, make it accessible from anywhere, easy to duplicate if I want to send it to someone, etc...
The cheaper printers are sold at a huge loss and the loss is made up by selling ink cartridges (or toner cartridges). For ink jet, the cheaper the printer the more the ink costs (IME). I have to believe that this suit was brought, because they were starting to see it cut into profits on those printers. If Lexmark works like Epson, the cheap printers are sold for less than the price of ink on the cheapest printers and the cheapest printers get less ink/$ than more expensive printers.
It's the business model. If that goes away, $50.00 printers have to go away too.
why or how? There is a slight difference there. Does it always damage the printer no. Can it damage it? Under some cases yes. Mostly because there is no standard for quality then. Using the oil analog many have brought up, let's say that I start selling something as full synthetic oil, but really it is used oil that I have thinned out with water and put into new drums. Do you agree that will damage your car? What if I started selling something as 5w-30 that was not at standards for that? When it comes to toner the issues that I have seen is that the cartridge is poorly designed and ends up leaking toner into the printer and in some cases ends up getting into all the rollers which then bakes onto the transfer roller. In some cases taking a printer apart and blowing it out was enough. Others needed all new rollers, one needed a new fuser as that got full of so much toner. That is what I have seen personally, which mileage may vary.
Thank god Gorsuch isn't on there yet. Dude would undoubtedly side with Lexmark automatically.
I'm not against anyone using non-OEM toners; but my advise is always "you get what you pay for".
If you want the best quality and reliability by the OEM. The issue is that OEM toners are built to very strict quality standards. There are NO standards for knock off toners.
Believe me, some brands are guys building them in their garage.
The solution is to void the warranty.
For the money I can save with 3rd party cartridges, voiding the warranty is a price I'll gladly pay.
The proposed solution is much more broad than what is necessary for that issue. It's to create a captive market.
The long term problem for them is if they succeed, they will create a market for knock off Chinese printers. Not conterfeits, but close copies. They'll suck at first but will eventually get it together. I guess they want to commit corporate suicide.
Which is cheaper
$50 printer + $70 cartridge + $70 cartridge, or
$100 printer + $20 cartridge + $20 cartridge.
($190 vs. $140) with a $50 dollar advantage with each additional cartridge.
The printer is subsidized to lock you in to their overpriced cartridges. It's not an act of kindness.
The quality concern is the reason why I don't buy the third party toners, I know they are a lot cheaper but if they do damage my printer, even tho the printer relatively cheap, it creates additional work for me and causes quite a bit of inconvenience.
In every case besides the printer being broken to begin with or the customer using knock off ink; the main reason the wax-ink Xerox failed to preform was they sit idle all the time and are only used occasionally.
All liquid ink printers preform best when they are used regularly. In the case of the Xerox sitting idle all the time is the worst thing for it. It has to constantly purge the ink because if left too long in a melted state it starts to go bad. The yellow will turn brown when you print.
I serviced some Xerox Phasers for a guy that run a small business out of his garage. He actually had a cool idea. He reproduced factory operators manuals for old equipment. Like a op manual for a Apple IIe. He said you would be surprised at the demand. He printed and bound them identical to the original ones. He had 2 Xerox printer that produces the print and graphics and he ran them hard all the time and they preformed great. He liked them because the color graphics prints resembled the original graphics done on a 4 color press. A laser printer couldn't reproduce the same color vibrancy on plain paper.
I understand that, but that hasn't stopped people from buying the cheapest printers.
That said, for Laser, I really don't care. I've been on the original toner cartridge for several years (5-8 years). I did have to put tape over the holes that it uses to say it's empty last year (because it's not really empty), but even if it was, that's way better than inkjets, which clog if you don't use them regularly.
A win today.
I didn't need anyone's permission to refill my ink cartridge. I got sick and tired of buying overpriced ink and did one better. I now bought special cartridges that are meant to be refilled and the ink I buy is like $20 that I can refill for at least 1 years use.
This is great news. I don't use Ink Jets anymore (laser is cheaper and online print shops do a great job printing photos at a low price).
Surprising but great news. Wonder how this will affect the John Deere Co.'s efforts to lock farmers into John Deere approved parts and software modifications?
As others have commented, for most folks inkjets are a value trap. Owned one Epson color inkjet years ago. Might have got 50 printed sheets out of 3 sets of cartridges because I didn't print very often. Replaced with a HP Laserjet 1200, which is still in use today. Am on the 3rd or 4th toner.
HP does the same thing... they use that little chip to retard operation after an amount of time, even if the cartridge is still full.
Sure, you don't have to buy parts/consumables from us, but ours are the only ones with the decryption key, so good luck getting our OS to recognize the new part and not run in limp-dick mode.
I think that will be part of a Terms of Service / DCMA challenge. Can software licensing (the OS the tractor runs, in this example) disable a rightfully purchased vehicle after the first sale? You see this in a lot of vehicles, such as BMW/etc - if an official part isn't used and reset by the manufacturer in the OS, the vehicle will limit some functionality / operate in a reduced mode. Attempts to allow consumer software tools to adjust these settings are met with DCMA lawsuits.
I used to just buy a new printer back in the day when ink ran out lol. Worked out to be cheaper if not a few dollars more to replace the cartridge. I just use my work printer if I need to print anything nowadays.
In China, aftermarket toner cartridges were everywhere and dirt cheap - it was paper that everyone considered to be expensive in a large print job. (But that had more to do with the laws that prevented the cutting of trees as they tried to push back the spread of the desert.) The fact that this company can now take lexmark cartridges and sell them back to consumers at discounted prices will really help bring more affordability to the toner marketspace, and really challenge the corporatism that controls and plagues the market.
Then there's the ramifications this ruling could have on John Deer and other manufacturers that try to control their goods after they've been sold....
Long Live The Free Market!
That's the beauty of this lawsuit. This company uses Lexmark products, so they don't need to decrypt anything. It already is a "genuine" product. Lexmark already has tech in place that prevents after-market cartridges from being recognized. But these are actual Lexmark cartridges that are being bought from consumers and reused. The biggest concern this company might have is if they have to change any code in the toner firmware to get it to recognize itself as now being "full." If they do, then there's a potential lawsuit angle that Lexmark could leverage against them in a counter-suit.
When I get a new printer for the office, I buy an OEM toner the 1st time since the printer is still under warranty. After that it's always 3rd party.
I have HP printers with over 300,000 pages on generic toner.
At home I also use generic toner & ink. Inkjet printers only seem to last 2-3 years even with OEM ink. You just need to find a reliable company to buy better generic toner/ink istead of just buying the cheapest stuff you can find.
Good decision for the consumer. The problem remains how to make remanufactured third party ink cartridges to work right. In all my years of using inkjet printers, I have never found a third party ink cartridge that worked worth a crap. Spend about half as much money but end up throwing them away because of all the hassle associated with them. Don't know what formulations are used by the big boys but so far have not even been close to duplicated.
Consumers should be able to use whatever cartridge they want. If that cartridge is the reason the printer broke the manufacturer should be able to refuse the warranty. There is a reason the USA has the Magnuson Moss Act.
Mostly agree, but I suspect this will change the model of cheap entry level printers. Whether it's laser toner carts or ink jet carts, the reality is that most of the entry level models are sold at a loss and they expect to make it back from ink/toner sales (much like razor companies make their money on blade replacements
AFAIK this will not affect much price wise when the markets settle. The main sticking point in this lawsuit was not the sale of pre-used consumer cartridges per se but the resale of cartridges that originate from foreign countries where they are sold for less money with the disclaimer that they were not for resale in NA. Eventually the price is going to even out because Lexmark (in this case) will start charging more money for these cartridges in these foreign countries.
It doesn't matter. They will still figure out a way to cut us with the Razor Blade.
Yeah, well, looks like your Socialist Goddess had to throw a bone to her globalist masters. Hopefully nature takes it's course and RBG gets her just reward in a nice, comfy nursing home real soon.
All the liberals here seem to forget Hollywood is closely aligned with the Dems, as well as the globalist billionaire class like George Soros, Zuckerberg, and Bezos (who are doing all they can to force you to compete with the cheapest labor on the planet....for your benefit I'm sure). It was the Republicans that stopped the horrific Stop Online Piracy Act, that would have had even further reaching impacts than this.
What does Crow taste like?
Tell you what I hope that there is more of this to come, especially from the right to repair stance. Look at what John Deer has done with their tractors etc. I have family and friends that are farmers and it is BS! A lot of people think that this is a not me problem, but it is!
I don't know if it applies here, but some printer companies were adding an automatic expiration for cartridges, where the cartridge would record the date when it was first installed, and report empty after a set amount of time had passed, regardless of actual ink level remaining.
If not done so already, printer manufacturers will be more aggressive about checking for genuine branded ink tanks and it's expiration date. It will give them a good reason to refuse warranty because 3rd party ink tanks were used.
Manufacturer branded ink tanks already report expiration date, whether they were new, sealed, or not, they 'expire'. Those who purchased them well in advance were out of luck. That's a lawsuit on it's own.
If you can game the system, why not. But if the ink tanks, or whatever part you got for your gadget, caused unit to fail, then it's on you and the 3rd party. I'm sure there is a disclaimer that states they are not responsible if products damages devices. Like rechargeable batteries that explodes and destroys your brand new $1000 gadget.
The Koch Bros, Adelson, Mercer, Thiel, and Langone, to name but 5 billionaire GOP supporters (6 if you count both Koch Bros) with interests around the world
Problem is that most consumers simply don't know and go for cheapest printer as it looks like a better deal or listen to sales reps who push higher margin stuff as these customers will later come for ink. I'm sure a few get inkjet for its smaller size but I highly doubt that's the real issue. I have two Brother laser printers and had them for many years (like 8-9). Both work and oldest is on its second toner. They don't dry out, no heads to clean, really works best for those random print jobs. However very few people listen to any reason when I explain them the deal and still end up getting an inkjet. Oh well, it's their money. I just feel bad about that stuff as it creates so much waste (I'll save my sentiment for this whole consumerism society crap where everything is short lived and disposable).
Wow, GlowingGhoul. Assuming I'm a socialist, drawing false comparisons, AND getting facts wrong! In order:
- I said nothing about my own alignment, but we can discuss it if you ask nicely.
- What do Hollywood, liberals, and socialism have to do with my Gorsuch/Lexmark comment?
- I was relying on common knowledge of Gorsuch's pro-business tendencies though, so if you'd like citation I can provide it.
- I suggest you brush up on SOPA history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act). Republicans sponsored and championed the bill.
- What does the fox say?
It really depends on which part of Hollywood you are talking about.
Directors, writers, actors, and production crew, sure I could see that. After all, it's hard to create something that appeals to the masses if you only think about yourself.
Movie studio executives and financial backers (the kind of people most concerned with copyright and patent law) are solidly Republican though, because they are only in Hollywood to get rich, and the Republican party is the party of the rich.