>-----Original Message-----
>From: pic microcontroller discussion list
>[spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
>Sent: 05 August 2004 11:21
>To: .....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: [OT:] Why you shouldn't buy HP inkjet printers
>
>
>This is a repeating theme with me. Usually triggered by HP
>gaining the temporary upper hand in my fight to overcome their
>anti-customer drive.
>
>Summary:
>
>HP inkjet printers' print quality, initial cost of purchase,
>features  & longevity are good, but not so good as to make
>them clearly stand out from their competitors.
>
>However, their aggressive attempts at profiteering on
>consumables and their forcing this on their captive customers
>make the true cost of ownership of their inkjet printers very
>high compared with entirely acceptable alternatives.
>
>While they retain their abysmal approach to customers I will
>not buy HP inkjet printers and actively recommend that nobody
>else does either. If enough people get the message, then maybe
>HP will change their ways. Pass it on :-)

>...<
> HP inkjet printers' print quality, initial cost of purchase, features  &
> longevity are good, but not so good as to make them clearly stand out from
> their competitors.
>
> However, their aggressive attempts at profiteering on consumables and their
> forcing this on their captive customers make the true cost of ownership of
> their inkjet printers very high compared with entirely acceptable
> alternatives.
>
> While they retain their abysmal approach to customers I will not buy HP
> inkjet printers and actively recommend that nobody else does either.
> If enough people get the message, then maybe HP will change their ways.
> Pass it on :-)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: pic microcontroller discussion list
>[.....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
>Sent: 05 August 2004 12:47
>To: EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OT:] Why you shouldn't buy HP inkjet printers
>
>
>> Is there any inkjet company that doesn't do this - Epson &
>Lexmark are
>just as bad.
>
>Canon.
>And others are generally not as bad as HP.
>
>> The problem is , like most things, you can either make hardware that
>> is
>cheap to buy but expensive
>to run, or vice versa.
>
>NO. HP are no cheaper than eg canon on average, but
>purposefully dearer to run. It is NOT a zero sum game - they
>are out to make far more from you than eg Canon are. Guess
>which brand I recommend people look at first?
>
>> Unfortunately the avarage customer doesn't understand this and goes
>> for
>the cheapest product and
>doesn't find out until too late.
>
>
>Sad thing is, HP aren't even necessarily any cheaper to buy.
>
>
>
>How many people have I convinced so far ? :-)
>

>>Yeah, tell me about it !
>>I just got a messege from my HP CP1700 (A3 inkjet) printer
>>saying the inkcartriges are outdated. Then the printer wont print.
>>"Nice" when they are at 90% full !
>>
>>So... ~$250 and 4 new inkcatriges and 4 new printheads it works
>>again for ... 2-3 years. I better rem to try to use the printer more
>>b4 it times out again :-( No more HP for me, thank you very much.
>>
>>
>
>I would have thought that that version of 'won't work" could be pursued
>through a consumer advocacy group of some sort. Surely that is a decision
>that you as buyer are entitled to make.
>
>
>        RM
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
>
>
>
>

> Canon for me
>
> Tomshardware.com generally reviews printers where HP's printing cost per
> page is 2x that of Epson and Epson's is greater than Canon's.  The worst
> 'bargain' here is Lexmark where a complete set of cartridges costs approx.
> 1.5x the cost of the printer.
>
> Your comments on HP are exactly right!
>
>
> Roger

>This is a repeating theme with me. Usually triggered by HP gaining the
>temporary upper hand in my fight to overcome their anti-customer drive.
>
>Summary:
>
>HP inkjet printers' print quality, initial cost of purchase, features  &
>longevity are good, but not so good as to make them clearly stand out from
>their competitors.
>
>However, their aggressive attempts at profiteering on consumables and their
>forcing this on their captive customers make the true cost of ownership of
>their inkjet printers very high compared with entirely acceptable
>alternatives.
>
>While they retain their abysmal approach to customers I will not buy HP
>inkjet printers and actively recommend that nobody else does either.
>If enough people get the message, then maybe HP will change their ways.
>Pass it on :-)
>
>
>        RM
>
>____________________________________________________
>
>
>HP ink-jet printers perform well. They are typically near the top of the
>market, but never so good that they stand head and shoulders above others in
>performance or quality.
>
>HP inkjet printers are priced competitively. But seldom so well that they
>are definitely the lowest cost solution for a given application, based on
>purchase price alone.
>
>HP printers are well enough built for their price, but do not appear to last
>notably longer than their competitors.
>
>Based on the above I'd conclude that HP printers are worth considering along
>with the rest - notably (in no special order) Canon, Brother, Epson, Lexmark
>and no doubt a few others that don't immediately come to mind.
>
>HOWEVER - HP are aggressively abysmal in one important area. The effective
>price of their consumables is atrocious in comparison to many competitors.
>They use every available trick to prevent refilling their cartridges. The
>ink in an HP colour cartridge typically costs the end user in excess of $500
>per litre. HP state that their cartridges are intended for single use only
>and then set out to attempt to prevent the user refilling the cartridges.
>Methods vary depending on printer.
>
>- Some include electronic memories which declare a cartridge "dead" after a
>certain maximum number of prints have been made. One solution is to swap the
>refilled cartridges between printers - the printer-cartridge pair seems to
>be a part of the count.
>
>- HP include the print head within the cartridge. While this notionally
>ensures that print quality is always good because the print head is replaced
>frequently, there is a subtle downside. HP print quality is not notably
>better than competitors with print heads that are separate from the
>cartridge. But if a cartridge empties at least some HP printers rely o the
>ink to cool the head and will burn out the print head. Typical result is a
>cartridge which can be refilled but which has one fused head. Dead, Jim.
>Solution is to never allow any chamber to run dry.
>
>- Some HP cartridges have abradable electrical contact surfaces which are
>damaged each time the cartridge is inserted into or removed from the
>printer. Do this a few times and a contact goes open circuit. The printer
>can detect this and declare the cartridge dead. Such "faults" can sometimes
>be repaired by building up with eg silver PCB track repair paste. YMWV.
>Insertion of a plastic strop behind the cartridge while inserting and
>removing (supplied by some refill suppliers) will reduce but not prevent the
>damage.
>
>But overall, HP are out to get you. While canon provide refillable tank
>technology, HP attempt to take the customer to the cleaners.
>
>Legally they are possibly allowed to do what they do - although failure to
>acquaint customers with their practices up front is ethically and perhaps
>legally suspect.
>
>Morally HP can, within reason, do as they will.
>What I can't understand is "What part of 'The customer is always right' and
>'customer service' don't they understand?"
>
>Customers have a right to attempt to refill HP cartridges.
>Customers also have a right to choose to buy HP printers, or not.
>
>I'm taking the latter path, and advising anyone who will listen and some who
>won't, to do the same.
>If enough people get the message, then maybe HP will change their ways.
>Pass it on.
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
>
>
>
>

> I'll second that. I've spoken to HP in the past, and quoting their
> words: 'Our LaserJet's do use Canon engines, which should do around a
> million pages'. We've got a HP LaserJet 5 here that has done ~1.8
> million copies, at the last count, and it's still going!! (no, it's not
> a typo - 1,800,000!!). We've even had HP engineers taking away a page
> count report to frame on their walls to marvel at!!
>
> I use a smaller LaserJet myself at home with 18k pages on the clock AND
> a 'low-end' DeskJet - and not had a problem with either of them,
> (through photo's, letters or otherwise). I've used Lexmarks, EPSONs,
> DECs, Brothers, etc - but can't find anything better all-round than HPs.
> Just incase you've not noticed - I'm pro-HP all the way, and wouldn't
> have a bad word said against them! I also accept and agree that HP pack
> (nearly) twice the amount of ink in one cartridge when compared against
> most competitors.
>
> Going back to the original comment about naff build quality in HP
> products - I total disagreement - and I've got 1.8 million reasons to do
> so!
>
> Dillan
>
>
>

>
> > I agree HP are worse
> > than most, although the integrated print head is bound to push the cost of
> > the cartridge up considerably.
>
> That's their marketing choice. They COULD eg keep the integrated head, make
> the cartridge dearer and make it formally refillable. it is after all
> ACTUALLY refillable. The limits on refilling I have met are ALWAYS HP
> destroying the cartridge that I endeavour to make last. Lost a Black and a
> Colour yesterday to their skill, which is what prompted my message.

> This is a repeating theme with me. Usually triggered by HP gaining the
> temporary upper hand in my fight to overcome their anti-customer drive.
>
> Summary:
>
> HP inkjet printers' print quality, initial cost of purchase, features  &
> longevity are good, but not so good as to make them clearly stand out from
> their competitors.
>
> However, their aggressive attempts at profiteering on consumables and
> their
> forcing this on their captive customers make the true cost of ownership of
> their inkjet printers very high compared with entirely acceptable
> alternatives.
>
> While they retain their abysmal approach to customers I will not buy HP
> inkjet printers and actively recommend that nobody else does either.
> If enough people get the message, then maybe HP will change their ways.
> Pass it on :-)
>
>
>         RM
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
>
> HP ink-jet printers perform well. They are typically near the top of the
> market, but never so good that they stand head and shoulders above others
> in
> performance or quality.
>
> HP inkjet printers are priced competitively. But seldom so well that they
> are definitely the lowest cost solution for a given application, based on
> purchase price alone.
>
> HP printers are well enough built for their price, but do not appear to
> last
> notably longer than their competitors.
>
> Based on the above I'd conclude that HP printers are worth considering
> along
> with the rest - notably (in no special order) Canon, Brother, Epson,
> Lexmark
> and no doubt a few others that don't immediately come to mind.
>
> HOWEVER - HP are aggressively abysmal in one important area. The effective
> price of their consumables is atrocious in comparison to many competitors.
> They use every available trick to prevent refilling their cartridges. The
> ink in an HP colour cartridge typically costs the end user in excess of
> $500
> per litre. HP state that their cartridges are intended for single use only
> and then set out to attempt to prevent the user refilling the cartridges.
> Methods vary depending on printer.
>
> - Some include electronic memories which declare a cartridge "dead" after
> a
> certain maximum number of prints have been made. One solution is to swap
> the
> refilled cartridges between printers - the printer-cartridge pair seems to
> be a part of the count.
>
> - HP include the print head within the cartridge. While this notionally
> ensures that print quality is always good because the print head is
> replaced
> frequently, there is a subtle downside. HP print quality is not notably
> better than competitors with print heads that are separate from the
> cartridge. But if a cartridge empties at least some HP printers rely o the
> ink to cool the head and will burn out the print head. Typical result is a
> cartridge which can be refilled but which has one fused head. Dead, Jim.
> Solution is to never allow any chamber to run dry.
>
> - Some HP cartridges have abradable electrical contact surfaces which are
> damaged each time the cartridge is inserted into or removed from the
> printer. Do this a few times and a contact goes open circuit. The printer
> can detect this and declare the cartridge dead. Such "faults" can
> sometimes
> be repaired by building up with eg silver PCB track repair paste. YMWV.
> Insertion of a plastic strop behind the cartridge while inserting and
> removing (supplied by some refill suppliers) will reduce but not prevent
> the
> damage.
>
> But overall, HP are out to get you. While canon provide refillable tank
> technology, HP attempt to take the customer to the cleaners.
>
> Legally they are possibly allowed to do what they do - although failure to
> acquaint customers with their practices up front is ethically and perhaps
> legally suspect.
>
> Morally HP can, within reason, do as they will.
> What I can't understand is "What part of 'The customer is always right'
> and
> 'customer service' don't they understand?"
>
> Customers have a right to attempt to refill HP cartridges.
> Customers also have a right to choose to buy HP printers, or not.
>
> I'm taking the latter path, and advising anyone who will listen and some
> who
> won't, to do the same.
> If enough people get the message, then maybe HP will change their ways.
> Pass it on.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>

> > I think you'll find that HP are actually better than Lexmark in the cost
>of
> > printer/cost of consumables ratio.  All inkjet manufacturers charge
> > ridiculous prices for ink cartridges,
>
>No. eg Canon is substantially lower than eg HP AND Canon can be refilled
>from 3rd party sources.
>Cost of genuine ink is down near that of 'competitive" market forces 3rd
>party suppliers of refill ink.
>
> > it's the price that consumers are
> > paying for demanding ultra low (initial)cost printers.
>
>NO!
>1. No consumer demands low initial prices per se. That's a mareting decision
>by ther sellers.
>2. As I noted, HP prices are NOT notably cheaper than eg Canon's  - and
>canion invite refilling. IF HP gave a very clear price edge there may be
>some justification for their rip off actions, As it is it is just plain
>gouging with alternatives available.
>
> > I agree HP are worse
> > than most, although the integrated print head is bound to push the cost of
> > the cartridge up considerably.
>
>That's their marketing choice. They COULD eg keep the integrated head, make
>the cartridge dearer and make it formally refillable. it is after all
>ACTUALLY refillable. The limits on refilling I have met are ALWAYS HP
>destroying the cartridge that I endeavour to make last. Lost a Black and a
>Colour yesterday to their skill, which is what prompted my message.
>
> > Some Canon printers could have the print
> > head and cartridges changed separately, a great idea especialy with the
> > extremely low price of third party cartridges for them.
>
>All Canon's except the very cheapest ones AFAIR.
>
>I recommend people look carefully at refill options when they buy.
>I even accost intending buyers in computer stores thats ell several brands
>and point out the "facts".
>
> > The answer of course is to refill the HP cartridges as many times as
> > possible.
>
>NO!.
>The answer is to never buy HP.
>I DO refill my HP cartridges as many times as I can. I am skilled at
>maintaining their life and not letting HP destroy them in the end, byut
>ultimately HP win. The catridge is ALWAYS destroyed by an intentional
>destruction mechanism r one that could easily be avoided if they wished to
>avoid it. eg print head thermal burn out is intentional. HP have the skill
>to stop this happening. Instead it is a 'feature" of running an ink tank
>dry. If their brief was to design this to run for evere the print heads
>would NEVER thermally self destruct. (Catridge is too hot to hold when this
>happens).
>
>
>
>         RM
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/04