What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers • Hacker News Board

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#101

Post by Nursie » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

zwieback wrote: post #83

makecheck wrote: post #69

Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are obviously wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available. Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really need to push all companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels…

I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models: - disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer - permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challe…

Apparently a third and more sensible way is possible in the Indian market though, with the HP DeskJet GT printers, which have refillable reservoir tanks (not even disposable!)

Yet somewhow they aren't offered for sale in Europe?

Instead we get the subscription model, which involves yet more data (printer usage, ink levels) disappearing off to someone else's servers.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#102

Post by cbhl » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

Dell isn't a brand people commonly associate with printers, but I highly recommend their Color Laser printers. You spend $300-$400 upfront, but then you get a machine that talks PostScript and PCL (industry standards -- so no worrying about Linux support or installing special printer driver packages) and can be hooked up to the network (using Ethernet or Wi-Fi, depending on the model), and where each color of toner can be replaced independently.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#103

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

trcollinson wrote: post #64

Full disclosure, I am a former HP Engineer who worked with HP Labs, mostly in the Computer Vision area, and 100% productizing their labs research into viable profit streams. Your milage on my comments may vary. I am not going to attempt to justify what HP does but it will probably sound as though I am (try to remember myself and my entire team were laid off as unprofitable because we were 5% off on our $1 Billion rev…

[deleted]

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#104

Post by trcollinson » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #99

trcollinson wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree all the way around. Printing off of an ink jet printer is a horrible way to print photos and a lot of other things honestly. Laser is both technical better and superior in quality and price. By the way, one interesting anecdote, guess where Shutterfly gets its ink? And Walmart, Costco, Sam's Club, Walgreens, CVS, Snapfish, Peekaboo... I could go on and on. Also interesting, they often don't use HP ha…

Both HP and Epson inks are perfectly acceptable--when they come in big bottles at wholesale prices, rather than in proprietary cartridges at the wallet-raping retail price.

They are both perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances yes. Though if you put them under a microscope they are pretty different. Epson's engineers designed their inks for Epson ink delivery systems. HP engineers did the same for HP ink delivery systems. They have very interesting and subtle differences which can cause different performance. However, their compatibility is relatively high, yes.

Knock off ink with less engineering on the other hand doesn't mimic HP OR Epson ink nearly as well as they mimic each other.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#105

Post by wtallis » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

zwieback wrote: post #83

makecheck wrote: post #69

Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are obviously wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available. Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really need to push all companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels…

I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models: - disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer - permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challe…

My laser printer has a replaceable toner cartridge and a replaceable drum unit that needs replacement far less often. The market can certainly handle the complexity of separately replaceable printheads and ink.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#106

Post by mrec » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

willismichael wrote: post #94

untothebreach wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had great luck with Brother drivers on all the linux machines I've ever tried to use them with, so I would consider that a good option as well.

Another thumbs up for Brother, their consumer laser printers are now comparable in price to inkjet printers, and the toner is much less hassle and significantly less expensive per print. I've had no trouble with drivers on Linux either.

I've been hearing good things about Brother, but all their (and AFAIK everyone else's) laser printers are still pretty hefty compared to inkjets, aren't they?

Being very space-constrained (London) and looking at very occasional use (I've managed without owning a printer at all so far) that's a bit offputting.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#107

Post by RRWagner » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

icefo wrote: post #78

makecheck wrote: post #69

Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are obviously wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available. Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really need to push all companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels…

Epson did it: http://www.epson.com/ecotank I didn't bought it because it was too big to fit on my desk and I don't know if I will buy an other Epson because they drivers are bad on my Debian. I should try to upgrade them. HP is pretty terrible but the Linux drivers are impressive.

I have the Epson L210 Ecotank and have been very happy with it for my use, which is printing lots of pages (1000s). I would much rather pay for what I'm getting directly ($300 for the printer, $13 for 70ml bottle of ink) than plans for an "almost-free" printer and $60 cartridges to subsidize the printer. The problem with "free" in everything is that it's not and costs more than paying for what you really want to buy. As someone once said, "Expensive is expensive once. Cheap is expensive over and over again."

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#108

Post by pmarreck » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

zwieback wrote: post #83

makecheck wrote: post #69

Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are obviously wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available. Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really need to push all companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels…

I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models: - disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer - permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challe…

The above is exactly why i got out of ever buying an inkjet again and have re-adopted laser printers.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#109

Post by jasperry » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #57

Agustus wrote: post #13

A brother MFC is $250, is sturdier and does not hate me as a consumer. Changing a toner is $50 per cartridge. I recommend it to every person looking for a printer: Buy a laser printer.

Another Brother laser printer user here. I did have some strange networking problems when I initially configured mine for wireless use. The Macs on the network consistently lost the ability to connect. My son eventually resolved the problem, though I never bothered to ask how. Never had that issue with Canon, but so far, I much happier with the Brother. The toner cartridge lasts WAY longer than the Canon inkjet and p…

I had the same problem with a Mac losing the wireless connection to our Brother. The best I could do was make the router give the printer a fixed IP, then manually set the port to that IP on the Mac (I'm not in front of it now, so can't recall the exact details.)

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#110

Post by zwieback » Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #100

zwieback wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models: - disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer - permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challe…

How about a third model? Customer replaceable print heads with physically separate customer replaceable and optionally refillable ink tanks of various capacities. Why must such things be mutually exclusive? That said, I switched to a laser printer from Samsung for any printing that I still do. I had a HP photosmart printer for photo prints, but at the volume of a photo a year, it is cheaper to have the photo printed…

We have that in the plotter space and had it for a while in the home space as well. Not sure why we switched away from that model although I'm sure economics were involved. It also goes toward what the other commenter says - many of us would prefer a longer-life printer but the reality is that the mass-market prefers low initial prices and it's hard to put replaceable printheads with reliable plumbing into a low-end mechanism.