Canon sued over AiO printers that won't scan when ink runs out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

I have an older printer. Canon. I use *cheap* cartridges where I pay the same for 7 sets of dirt cheap ones as I would for one set of OEM. It will allow run low and run dry. It will cease printing and alert that the print tank is empty and allow a user override. The cheap ink is awful, there's no doubt It fades very quickly and is washed out even when fresh. But, it serves my purpose which is mostly text, documents and the occasional bespoke birthday card. I used to do a lot of photo printing which made it worth buying either OEM or higher quality third party ink. Now, not so much and I question the need for an inkjet on that basis. These days we just get photos we want properly printed done at a shop and it's far better value than buying expensive cartridges for the rare occasion when they're needed. Also, these days I have a digital photo frame that we dump our photos onto which is far better than printed for everyday use.

The hardest part of having an old printer is getting 10 year old software to function on newer operating systems but, they have no idea how far I'll go to avoid buying a new printer for the sake of software obsolescence. I'll use a VM with an old version of Windows or a Pi print server if I need to. Just try me you utter ba....

With an older printer, I can run it dry if I want, or I can open and remove a cartridge, inspect the ink level and make my own decision. It scans if I want it to whatever the occasion.

I did use refillable tanks a while back but I found them far too messy. I shake a bit anyway and the potential for mess was too great for me. I think what I have represents the best balance.

What I will NOT be doing is buying Canon now. I used to prefer them as certain models allowed replacement of the heads. I will not reward this kind of nonsense and I'll be likely replacing with a tank printer if the refill methods are less hazardous to carpets. Or a dot matrix. I quite fancy a dot matrix for the nostalgia value.

---

I have a lot of sympathy with that. You may have noticed past threads where I've pointed out I still have a number of old PCs, still running not only Win 7 but even Win XP, due to old hardware, and even some old software.

Looking around my office, I have .... I'd have to go count them to even be sure to get them all. But certainly, several A4 photo printers, two A3 photo printers, an A1 inkjet, several lasers, Olympus dye-sub printers, three Alps MicroDry printers and so on. Also, everything from Nikon and Olympus film scanners to A3 flatbeds, and auto-feeding auto-duplex document scanning systems.

I really, really sympathise with that. Cheap inks have their place, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use them. Just trying to explain some of the reasons why they're cheaper, which in part is the different cost base of manufacturers that developed the printers in thr first place.

And also, if people choose to use cheap ink or toner, just undertand the compromises and/or risks involved in doing it.

I have a cheap colour laser thats around 10 years old, uses cheap toner, its fine for bulk printing. Also have a HP AIO inkjet for A3 scanning and printing, ink isnt that bad (have stopped it updating firmware so can use 3rd part ink), also great for its job. Lastly have an an Epson Expression A3+, yes its expensive to run, but it prints beautifully, including B&W (has a grey tank), heavy duty paper, and does A3+. Worth the cost for me. For general home muck about printing you cannot beat a colour laser, preferably with duplexer. Had a B&W and a colour laser from IJT on the toner deals, 1st was 20 years ago, 2nd was around 10.

Did a lot of research on photo forums, all of the pointed to getting somebody else to print unless you want full control and what seems to be a hobby in its own right. Also that the biggest killer is lack of use. Which reminds me, better print a test page ;)

Agreed on the B&W aspect, OwP. I covered so much tht \i was doing that bit, as it's a 'photographer' niche kinda thing, but along with paper selection (Hahnemuhle is one of my favourites) it's another area where a lot hs gone into development. I would advise .... careful .... choice if 3rd patty inks for that sort of thing. I glossed over that too, but not all 3rd party inks (or papers) are equal .... and 'cheap' can be a relative term, too.

I'm another of the users that gave up on colour printing years ago. So 2016 bought a cheap(£34) Ricoh B&W laser from Tescos and never looked back, it's on it's second toner, it sits in a cupboard connected to the network and just works when it's needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

Epson printers aren't designed to have user-replaceable heads. It's a service centre job, if economically feasible at all. They're designed to last the life of the machine. The piezo technique is 'cold', unlike thermal heads so they don't suffer from anything like the thermal stresses of thermal inkjets.

The reason 'thermal' inkjets have heads built in to the cartridges is that they do have those thermal stresses and much shorter life, but as most such printers have the head built into th cartridge, every time you replace the cartridge, you replace th print head.

Of course, where that falls down is if you choose to go outside the manufacturer's recommendations and refill cartridges with an unknown quantity in the ink. It might be good, and you might manage to refill without introducing either dirt, or airlocks, but you might not. If you don't get away with it, and the manufacturer declines to honour a warranty because unknown ink was used, it can't come as much of a surprise. On thermal inkjets, even if the ink is good, you still have that head damage because the print head is being expected to have a far higher duty cycle than it is designed for.

---

The printer that I've had to scrap has ink tanks too. The print heads are user replaceable. i.e. it's got 4 individual cartridges that do not have the head on them - just a chip that the printer reads from and writes to. The cartridges are then fitted into the "head". The theory being that yes - heads wear out (or get bunged up) through use but not as often as ink runs out. I bought this printer because of that. The problem is that the Ink cartridges have tripled in price and they stopped making the heads completely.

The only reason for this has nothing to do with utility and everything to do with the fact that their newer printers can now lock out 3rd party inks completely. Development wise, I expect that they've moved a few bits of plastic around on the heads and cartridges and nothing much more. Then secured their design further to keep 3rd party inks out.

This a perfectly functional multifunction printer that's quite large, has a duplex auto feeding scanner and full duplex printing is getting chucked because HP want me to throw more money at them for a new MFP that they can lock me in on for inks.

It's like me scrapping a combustion engined car because the battery has gone. Except the manufacturer has ensured that no 3rd party battery can be developed.

I see that you agree that Canon's behaviour is unacceptable. Is it acceptable to you that large amounts of un recyclable waste are created to boost profits whilst providing absolutely no social utility at all?

I think I've had a Dell Colour Laser printer for many years now, and I'm still happy I bought it due to the minimal amount of printing I actually do as it was obviously the much more sensible option than carrying on with inkjet.

When I do need to print, I can do so quickly and easily, especially in colour if that is needed. Better to have that ability and not need it than need it but not have it. I'm surprised that there aren't more here on HEXUS with colour laser printers rather than black and white ones though. Third-party compatible toner is of course still much cheaper than official ones.

As for scanning, I have a separate document scanner for that. I did have to replace a earlier generation that I had due to not having driver support on newer versions of Windows, but I'd assume that the newer one had improvements with its scanning quality/capability in the years in between anyway.

I am surprised that Canon pulled this on AIO printers for this long though, as common sense dictates that being low on ink has nothing to do with the ability to scan.

I can only assume they prioritised profits over any potential action against them. Whether the resulting cost of the action against them (if upheld) will exceed the profits they enjoyed due to it is another question entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

Cheap inks have their place, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use them. Just trying to explain some of the reasons why they're cheaper, which in part is the different cost base of manufacturers that developed the printers in thr first place.

And also, if people choose to use cheap ink or toner, just undertand the compromises and/or risks involved in doing it.

---

This sums it up. If you can't see the value in the expensive inks, don't buy them. They aren't for you. It's like me and posh wine - I don't see the value in it if I can't stick it on me fish n'chips. Some people appreciate it. That's their choice.

My parents buy OEM HP ink and, when they printed out a few photos from my wedding, the results are excellent. I don't lay into them for using expensive ink as they have made that decision and are frugal people, only spending extra on something if they see a genuine need.

To me this is like petrol. If you don't see the point in Shell V-Power and think it's a waste of money, then don't buy it. Buy the cheap stuff from the supermarket and have done with it. But there are absolutely people who do need the posh fuel and that little bit of extra chemistry comes at a significant cost. If you commute to work in a Fiesta, you'll be wasting your money on posh fuel. These days, with E10 and E5 making a significant difference to some vehicles, there's more of a reason to use posh stuff. But when I was riding a high compression motorbike, supermarket fuel made it act like the engine was knackered. For me, it made sense to use decent fuel with that vehicle. The marketing around such fuels is a different matter.

It's the same with ink - if the cheapo stuff meets your needs, use the cheapo stuff. Accept there may be some legitimate performance and lifespan issues which may or may not affect you, as I found with that one particular bike. Certainly get the word out that manufacturers shouldn't be locking down printers and that there are alternatives and a free market out there to people who aren't aware.

But you should accept that there are people who have a use for the OEM ink. That might even be for B&W ink for legal reasons. If that OEM ink is formally tested and rated to last 100 years, you may have use of that. I know of systems which fade after 5 years and aren't legible after 10. That's simply not acceptable in a lot of legal situations and someone might use such ink purely because the cost of not having their documentation last would dwarf any extra spent on ink. They can also show they're taking reasonable precautions to ensure the integrity of printed information for the duration it needs to be stored. And yes, I do know of situations where inkjets are used for legal documentation over lasers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Output

I'm surprised that there aren't more here on HEXUS with colour laser printers rather than black and white ones though. Third-party compatible toner is of course still much cheaper than official ones.

---

I moved to colour lasers about ten-ish years ago - purely out of frustration with inkjets: the hideous costs, the nerfed functionality when carts run dry and the frankly ridiculous carry on when your infrequent/occasional use leads to gummed up print heads, and the inevitable quarter of a cartridge used when cleaning the head.

I'm on my third colour laser. The first one, a Samsung CLP 315, died after about five years of flawless performance. The second one, a Dell 1760nw, is stored in the loft after recently being replaced by a more capable Samsung C460FW AIO model, after my venerable flatbed scanner kicked the bucket.

All were bought second hand, came with extra toner carts and each one cost me less than a full set of colour oem inks for my old Epson AIO. The CLP513 was £30, the Dell was £25, and the latest one was also £30.

I can occasionally go months without needing to print anything and the reliability of switching on a laser and it just working, without having to piddle about for an hour just to get a clean print, is just one less headache.

I'm happy that Canon are being called out on this! I've got a Canon AiO that the print head has some issue that has thrown up an error code which stops the unit from doing anything... I don't see why the scanner can't be used other than Canon has decided to put that restriction in place.

I buy Epson printers mostly, and always make sure I can get affordable third party ink replacements before I settle on a model. Usually 15 quid gets me 4 full sets of all colours, and the quality is very good. I will admit, if printing photos, the colour occasionally fades on the third party inks after 5+ years if the photos aren't stored properly in a photo album. But not always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

....

But you should accept that there are people who have a use for the OEM ink. That might even be for B&W ink for legal reasons. If that OEM ink is formally tested and rated to last 100 years, you may have use of that. I know of systems which fade after 5 years and aren't legible after 10. That's simply not acceptable in a lot of legal situations and someone might use such ink purely because the cost of not having their documentation last would dwarf any extra spent on ink. They can also show they're taking reasonable precautions to ensure the integrity of printed information for the duration it needs to be stored. And yes, I do know of situations where inkjets are used for legal documentation over lasers.

---

Part of the issue is that there are all sorts of aspects to differing usage cases. The legal aspect is one much, but for that, I use a mono laser, and have since buying my first laser, an HP Laserjet II, but in the Middle Ages.

Another, for colour, is exposure to light. As mondayriot mentioned "proper storage in albums", I take the point, but not all usage cases involve album storage. Another is photos printed specifically for display, such as hung on the wall, and even more so if sold for that purpose. You really don't want customers coming back after a year or two with badly faded prints. This is one reason why I also have dye-sublimation printers, for some circumstances.

I both the legal and photo display cases, among others, the old adage "horses for courses" comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

....

I see that you agree that Canon's behaviour is unacceptable. Is it acceptable to you that large amounts of un recyclable waste are created to boost profits whilst providing absolutely no social utility at all?

---

No, but that wasn't my point. My point is that ther are reasons why 3rd party ink manufacturers can make inks cheaper .... because they don't have the same costs in the first place. The printer manufacturers have already borne those. If they hadn't, there would be no printers for 3rd-party ink companies to make inks for.

I'm not saying there is no profiteering out of inks. I'm saying nobody not on the inside of the right departments in printer manufacturers (including me, and I have had far, far closer access than the vast majority of people) knows what proportion of the price difference is due to differing costs, and what is due to "profiteering".

What we also don't know is which printers actually make a profit on selling the printer, and which are heavily subsidised by expected future sales of inks .... like other industries have been known to do, though with parts/servicing, not ink). There certainly has been a trend for an inverse relationship between printer price and consumables pricing.

It's the assumption that differing ink prices is all down to profiteering that I'm getting at, when it is a simple fact that none of us know what the rather more complex cost base of manufacturing printers, cartridges and inks actually is, compared to 3rd party products. For instance, when it turns out that the optimum ink path for certain ink formulations is to cut ink channels in celluloid using eximer lasers, what does that add to production costs? What did it cost to do the research that led to that development, what does it do to cartridge manufacturing costs and what other channels that were explored led nowhere, and what did those failures cost? We don't know, but there were such costs and 3rd party manufacturers don't share in them.

Furthermore, when a printer manufacturer adopts such a technology, and the very small ink channels that result, they do it based on their ink formulations for that printer. Switch to 3rd party inks and you're taking a punt on how well that formulation works with those channels. It may work very well, but it may not. It's part of the risk.

My suggestion to anyone buying a printer, and this includes lasers which can also have running costs that aren't obvious up-front, is to do the research first. If you don't like the cost of printer manufacturer's own inks, either don't buy them and take those risks of 3rd party inks, or don't buy that printer at all.

It's not like this stuff is new, or should come as a surprise. I was writing articles on it 20 years or more ago, and I certainly wasn't the only one.