Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lexmark To Exit Inkjet Printer Market

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the let's-send-more-horse-heads dept.

Businesses 228

Barence writes "Lexmark has announced it will stop making inkjet printers and cut 1,700 jobs as part of a cost-cutting restructuring move. Lexmark will stop all inkjet development worldwide by 2013, and close its Philippines-based inkjet supplies manufacturing plant by 2015. This will provide annual savings of $85 million, rising to $95 million by 2015. The total restructuring cost before tax is expected to be $160 million. The company is also looking into the possible sale of its inkjet-related technology." I know there are some purposes for which inkjets are good (modern home photo printing can be insanely good, and we've featured a lot of cool projects which use inkjets to print sensors, solar cells, antennae, and more), but I get just a little queasy whenever I see an inkjet printer purchased by an innocent friend or family member who doesn't realize quite how much it will end up costing them in the long run.

cancel ×

228 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

executive speak demystified (5, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41148443)

Executive: "restructuring cost before tax"

English: "way to create a paper loss to avoid tax".

TIMOTHY YOU *#]IDIOT[#* (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148651)

AGAIN. I was reading through the summary. PLEASE STOP PUTTING PARENTHETICAL ASIDES IN EVERY SENTENCE. Because....know something? IT IS ANNOYING!!!!!!

Re:executive speak demystified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148957)

Insightful? How about obvious?

Taxes, etc muddy waters regarding income (2)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41149715)

Executive: "restructuring cost before tax"

English: "way to create a paper loss to avoid tax".

No. It is common to cite financial performance before taxes and other things. Hence the common use of acronyms like EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. These things muddy the water when trying to determine income, comparing one year to another, one company to another, etc.

Think of it like reporting your salary rather than the adjusted gross income (AGI) from your tax return.

Also, what makes you think there is a paper loss. Shutting down a plant does have costs. That is why some money losing plants are not shut down when their losses are significantly less than their shutdown costs.

Good (3, Insightful)

alispguru (72689) | about 2 years ago | (#41148471)

Just wondering, has anyone else ever had a good experience with a Lexmark printer on a non-Windows machine?

Or had a Lexmark printer do, say, ten pages in a row without smudging or jamming?

Or is it just me?

Re:Good (1)

Adriax (746043) | about 2 years ago | (#41148525)

I dunno about the quality of prints, I've never used them and forgot they even existed...

Re:Good (1)

jkiller (1030766) | about 2 years ago | (#41149559)

I dunno about the quality of prints, I've never used them and forgot they even existed...

Driver nightmare in a domain environment. Never had a good experience with these across many, many models. Print quality varies but would not prefer them.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 years ago | (#41148535)

FTFY

Just wondering, has anyone else ever had a good experience with a Lexmark printer?

Re:Good (1)

mccalli (323026) | about 2 years ago | (#41148689)

Yes, I certainly have. My old Lexmark Optra SC 1275 EN networked colour laser did absolutely great for years. Eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean after around ten years, I had a motor issue that was too expensive to economically repair, but for a decade that thing sat in my room reliably churning out good quality print.

Cheers,
Ian

I think the key word there was "laser" (3, Insightful)

alispguru (72689) | about 2 years ago | (#41148863)

I have no experience with laser printers by Lexmark. My inkjet experience with them has been uniformly bad.

Re:I think the key word there was "laser" (3, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | about 2 years ago | (#41148945)

With the exception of an original Stylewriter (which, I seem to remember, shared a lot of components with a Canon in the PC universe at the time), I have never had any form of good experience with an inkjet by any manufacturer. It's actually why I ended up with the Lexmark laser in the first place.

For their time, when your alternative was dot matrix or a third mortgage, inkjet printers were astonishing. That time has gone for a while now I think, time to dump the lot and concentrate on low-end colour lasers.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:I think the key word there was "laser" (2)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#41149199)

The early Stylewriters and the Canon Bubblejets they were based on, were great printers. They usually worked right, and the ink wasn't expensive. A friend used a Canon BJ-200e for years until they needed to print in color.

Re:Good (0)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41149069)

I had a motor issue that was too expensive to economically repair

Do you really believe it?

Re:Good (2)

Zibodiz (2160038) | about 2 years ago | (#41149799)

I concur. Lexmark lasers are awsome. I would take a Lexmark laser over an equivalent HP any day. They're the low-end of industrial, and are built like it. I've gotten millions of pages out of some.
I should also point out that I repair printers, and would rather repair a Lexmark T6xx series over just about any other printer on the market. Pretty easy to work on, the parts are affordable & readily available, and they just last forever. I had one at an Office Depot copy center that had over 2 million pages and still had better registration than their $20k Xerox black copier.
Now, their inkjet on the other hand, is only useful as a doorstop. I think their inkjet & laser engineering departments are completely disconnected.

Re:Good (1)

Antarius (542615) | about 2 years ago | (#41148845)

I had some good experiences with their lasers, especially in big government departments.

Of course, I was the contracted Lexmark service agent, so my good experiences were in being paid to work on them. ;-)


(To be fair, they were a decent workhorse. That said, they were all equipped with PostScript, so I didn't have to deal with driver issues.)

Re:Good (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41148595)

Just you? My Lexmark Ink-jet has very cheap black ink, prints plenty, and I have never had a smudge or a jam until I tried to scan in a 100 page document with the ADF and it backed-up.

Re:Good (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41148619)

About ten years ago, Lexmark was my favorite brand for cheap printers that just worked. Nowadays... not so much.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148621)

Just wondering, has anyone else ever had a good experience with a Lexmark printer on a non-Windows machine?

Last 4 words aren't necessary there. I've owned two and both were crap.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148873)

Oh, yeah, I've had great results with their laser printers.

Their inkjets are the worst pieces of garbage I've ever seen, of course.

Re:Good (2)

Tx (96709) | about 2 years ago | (#41148877)

I used to print very little, it could be several weeks between prints, and pretty much every time I tried to print with the Lexmark inkjet I had, I would have to mess around trying to get the dried up nozzles to work, before usually bowing to the inevitable and using a new cartridge. If I had left it with the feed open, the slightest amount of dust seemed to mess up the feed rollers, so that it would feed multiple sheets instead of one, and it was hard to clean that shit out. Of course I might have the same with other brands of inject if used that infrequently, but it certainly didn't leave a good impression. These days I don't print at home at all.

Re:Good (2)

blackest_k (761565) | about 2 years ago | (#41148905)

I have heard they make reasonable Laser printers.
However their inkjets are cheap to buy very expensive to run and not that reliable, and do not as memory serves support Linux in any way, I think it is different with the laser printers.

On the positive side the extinction of Lexmark inkjet's is coming non too soon. It may improve the situation with Dell Printers which I believe were rebadged Lexmarks.

It should be one less barrier to the adoption of Linux, for the average joe. A dual boot option is much more appealing when all the hardware just works and generally faster than in Windows. Ok not for everyone I know but it is a big negative when people find their printer isn't going to work in Linux.

Apart from Lexmarks soon to be redundant employee's I can not imagine anyone regretting the demise of the Lexmark inkjet

   

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149137)

I use Linux exclusively in my home office. My first b&w laser was a Lexmark with USB and parallel port. Being a laser it was reliable. The only issue I had was with USB or Cups. I never new which it was. It would work fine for months and then one day stop working. Hours of fiddling with USB plugs, reboot and reinstalling Cups would fix the issue. It would work fine for months again. Eventually I got fed up with this cycle and bought another printer. Still a Lexmark but a network printer instead. I've only had one Cups failure in about two years.

Not so bad (1)

kdawgud (915237) | about 2 years ago | (#41148473)

Inkjet prices aren't so bad for those home users that only need to print occasionally. It takes decent volume (and/or time) to make back the difference in start-up costs of a laser in the cases I've seen. Especially if you want access to color printing.

Re:Not so bad (4, Insightful)

bratloaf (1287954) | about 2 years ago | (#41148553)

Except that if you only print occasionally the ink heads clog or dry up, requiring a ink-wasting cleaning cycle or replacement... A cheap laser, even a cheap color laser, is so much better a choice for anything but photo printing. Decent color lasers can be had for $200 on sale sometimes. Really decent ones for $300.

Re:Not so bad (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41148649)

My inkjet printer is still using the starter cartridges that came with it in 2008 ($30 + free S&H for a networked printer made it too good to pass up). It's just starting to get low on B&W now. There were times I'd go more than 8 months without printing anything and never had a problem. However, once the ink runs out, I'll likely spend the money to get a nice networked color laser printer.

Re:Not so bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148961)

Your printer is 1 in a million. For the rest of us, buying a laser printer is really a bargain.

Re:Not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41150091)

You are saying you have the same ink cartridge that came with it in 2008? How did you get it to not dry up? Is the printer below a swamp cooler or something?

Re:Not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41150107)

My last printer was an Epson CX7400, printer and scanner combo; $49.
Linux drivers available, printed lots of prints (2 kids in school), yet would sit sometimes for many weeks.
Best part the non-oem easily refillable cartridges and the 100ml ink supplies; I went through several hundred ml.
2.5 years of printing for a total cost of $70us, a few dollars more for ink and paper. It died recently with an internal error.
On 2 occasions was it a hassle to clean the printheads.

Now I find that the NX330 wireless is available at Walmart for $49, and the refillable carts are under $20.
Prints and scans via wireless, copies, has LCD and SD card interface.
Can I get another 2.5 years out of this one? I may consider a laser, but unless this thing completely screws up,
it is the cheapest route possible.

Re:Not so bad (4, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41148603)

Laser isn't as expensive as it used to be.

For around $100 you can have a BW HP laser.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828115639 [newegg.com]

The quality and reliablity make it woth the extra money, even if you never recoup the $60 price difference between that and this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828102471 [newegg.com]

Color laser is closer to $ 170. But most casual printers don't really need color, they just need a readable printout.

Re:Not so bad (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41148685)

The quality and reliablity make it woth the extra money

That's my fear, lexmark will find a way to value engineer lasers to eliminate laser-style quality and reliability.

Imagine if McDonalds broke into the sushi market, dumped into the market to put all independent sushi shops out of business, them dropped quality to the level of rotten canned cat food to generate a modest financial gain, then got out of the sushi market because no one wants to buy rotten canned cat food anymore.

Re:Not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149367)

Speaking of McDonalds... It seems shitty quality is enough to turn people off buying printers but it won't stop them from buying and eating food. Weird.

Re:Not so bad (1)

Zibodiz (2160038) | about 2 years ago | (#41149895)

They call that 'the Walmart Syndrome'.

Re:Not so bad (2)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 2 years ago | (#41148773)

I don't know about HP quality vs Brother, but I just stopped by my local Staples both times I needed a new laser printer.
The last time the Brother was $80 and also had label maker thrown in.

Re:Not so bad (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41148931)

Yea, I was going to say -- I can't see COLOR laser printers being economical for average home use any time soon, but I bought a Brother HL-2040 black and white laser for $70 five years ago, and it's still working great. I love the thing. Never had a problem with it, even on Linux. Paid for itself more times than I can count too.

Of course, the problem with laser printers that cheap, is usually when anything more significant than a toner cartridge needs replaced, it's cheaper to just get a new printer. I found a refurbished drum that I bought a while back when the one it came with died, but even refurb I probably would have been better off just buying a whole new printer, especially considering that they come with some toner...of course I suppose you could say the same about inkjets, but they don't have any real expensive consumables like that (except the ink of course...sometimes I feel like you'd be better off getting a new inkjet that comes with some ink than new cartridges!)

Re:Not so bad (2)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 2 years ago | (#41149529)

Yeah. Never had any problems with the Brother under Linux either.
The other huge advantage besides cost-per-page for the Brother laser is that it is a really reliable tray fed.
Drop in a fresh ream of paper, and you shouldn't get any jams.

Re:Not so bad (1)

need4mospd (1146215) | about 2 years ago | (#41149073)

For the cost of that laser printer's replacement ink cartridge alone, I can get a quality color inkjet WITH a built-in scanner. While I might not need color prints(nice to have just in case), I'd make the case that a scanner is mandatory in any house.

Re:Not so bad (2)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#41149253)

Option 2 if you don't trust Brother printers: Find an old networked HP Laserjet for cheap. They go for very little and require little to keep running. Parts support is excellent if they do break. The toner and common service items (fuser, rollers, etc.) are cheap too.

Re:Not so bad (1)

caution live frogs (1196367) | about 2 years ago | (#41149919)

Yep. My 4M+ is still going strong, 90k+ page count. And I have a 5M at home, even with the extra paper tray add-on (so it holds a ream and a half) was a steal from university surplus at $50 - have been using it for like 6 years now...

Ink jets are not dependable. (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 years ago | (#41148699)

Inkjet prices aren't so bad for those home users that only need to print occasionally. .

Occasional printing is precisely what Ink jets are the worst at. Those things clog up and when they do manage to print it's only after a good phlem clearing dump of a lot of ink into the waste bin. It's the laser printers that work well on occasional printing, even with the warm up they need they still are faster than an ink jet, and they don't have unpredictable quality problems when they haven't been used in a while. Dependable when you suddenly need it.

I just bought a new multi-function duplex-printing laser printer from cannon for 77$ including shipping on amazon.com. Even the 500 sheet "starter" toner cartridge will last longer than a full ink jet will, and 3rd party replacement toner cartriges (2000 sheets) will be under $15.

given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?

Re:Ink jets are not dependable. (1)

medoc (90780) | about 2 years ago | (#41149139)

> given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?

Anyone needing color maybe ? Supplies for small color laser printers are actually more expensive than those for inkjets.

Re:Ink jets are not dependable. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149617)

They are?

You'll need to tell that to my colour laser printer for which I refill with all three colour toners plus black for $26. Search ebay for "cp1518ni toner refill" and you'll see--comes with the reset chips, too! For that $26 I average 1,400 colour pages and another 1,200 black and white pages. That's under 2 cents per page of colour, after which the black and white pages are free.

The best part is the toner washes off with cold water, whereas whenever I refilled an ink cartridge my hands (or forearms if I used gloves--yes, I'm lazy) looked like a science experiment gone wrong for the next week.

But hey, maybe you have a color inkjet that offers a better value. Go ahead, show me.

Re:Ink jets are not dependable. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149425)

Inkjet prices aren't so bad for those home users that only need to print occasionally. .

Occasional printing is precisely what Ink jets are the worst at. Those things clog up and when they do manage to print it's only after a good phlem clearing dump of a lot of ink into the waste bin. It's the laser printers that work well on occasional printing, even with the warm up they need they still are faster than an ink jet, and they don't have unpredictable quality problems when they haven't been used in a while. Dependable when you suddenly need it.

I just bought a new multi-function duplex-printing laser printer from cannon for 77$ including shipping on amazon.com. Even the 500 sheet "starter" toner cartridge will last longer than a full ink jet will, and 3rd party replacement toner cartriges (2000 sheets) will be under $15.

given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?

Photo printing. Cheap (even expensive) color lasers are nowhere near the photo quality of an ink jet. For many people printing photos is one of the things they want to do, and want to look good. And, as someone who researched the inkjet vs laser choice recently when bying a multifunction printer, this was the main reason I choose the ink jet. After about a year I haven't regretted. Print occasionally, have not had any clogging or realibility issues at all (suspect some of these stories are experiences with older inkjets as they were more troublesome), and I'm just nearing the end of the first ink cartridges I bought (after the small that followed the printer were empty). And yes, it is actually a Lexmark, Interact S606 WiFi.

Re: Drops support quickly (1)

CrowdedBrainzzzsand9 (2000224) | about 2 years ago | (#41149427)

I swore off Lexmark permanently for their habit of dropping support for printers so quickly. In my case, I couldn't get a driver for the next version of Windoze after the printer model was dropped. Clearly it was a way to force people to buy a new model. I did...an Epson.

Re:Not so bad (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 2 years ago | (#41149675)

except you can get a cheap hp bw Laser for under $100 most times with the benefit that toner never dries out and forcing replacement of the cartridge

My first laser was a Samsung bought on sale for $100 about a decade ago and it still works. Toner runs about $50 a cartridge and the really nice thing is, we've only bought 3 cartridges in the last decade. For the ocasisional printing needs, it's been a god send after using inkjets that had cartridge costs of $30+ for each (two needed).

I will agree that inkjets offer a reasonable alternative for those who need color printing but when I'm asked for input, I always suggest a laser printer. If you need to do a photo or two, go to Walmart/Walgreens/Riteaid/Other local store and spend the money for printing the thing out there. It's actually cheaper and better quality.

Excellent support! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148507)

Finally, after years of complaints and consumer demand, Lexmark bows to the will of the customer and does what everyone so desperately wanted, leave.

Re:Excellent support! (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41148759)

Finally, after years of complaints and consumer demand, Lexmark bows to the will of the customer and does what everyone so desperately wanted, leave.

Yep. When Lexmark was part of IBM, their printers were allegedly pretty decent, but I already had a printer, so I never got a Lexmark.

By the time I went shopping again, though, Lexmark had done their slimy DMCA thing. I swore I'd never buy a printer from a company that did that.

There might not be all that many players in the printer market, but there's enough that I could use the Invisible Hand and give them the Finger.

So I did.

Re:Excellent support! (4, Informative)

irving47 (73147) | about 2 years ago | (#41149405)

Came to say this. For those that don't know the DMCA reference, Lexmark filed lawsuits under the DMCA to prevent ink refill manufacturers from putting out products for their printers. They argued since the code in their printer/carts was copyrighted, the act of circumventing it by putting more ink in was illegal.
Yeah, they made a lot of friends with that one.

Good riddance.

Wet paper (0)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#41148531)

I just really dislike this curly, wet paper you get right after printing a big thing with an inkjet printer.

Re:Wet paper (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41148663)

Sounds like you're just not using the right kind of paper for a large image. Switch to paper made for printing large images with inkjet and you'll see a world of difference.

Re:Wet paper (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41148809)

Sounds like you're just not using the right kind of paper for a large image. Switch to paper made for printing large images with inkjet and you'll see a world of difference.

Although you can get by with other stuff, Inkjet paper was supposed to have a clay coating that keep the liquid from soaking the fibers. Although I've been printing laser for so long that I don't really know anymore.

Re:Wet paper (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41149911)

Sounds like you're just not using the right kind of paper for a large image. Switch to paper made for printing large images with inkjet and you'll see a world of difference.

At which point it becomes prohibitively expensive to own and operate an inkjet.

I mean, for photos, between Costco and Walmart (and who use real photo paper), it's pretty damn cheap to have extremely high quality prints made - better than an inkjet and probably an order of magnitude cheaper if you went with the special inkjet paper.

For black and white printing, a mono laser is extremely cheap, and even the consumer "half size" toner carts are still pushing 2,500+ pages for barely more than twice the cost of an inkjet black cartridge (which getting 500 pages is a struggle). Plus the output is nicer and doesn't smudge.

I haven't printed enough "other" stuff to really want to print in color (in a move, I found the old inkjet I had that the mono laser replaced - a Canon, which I hadn't touched in years).

About the only defense for an inkjet these days is that they are cheap - usually pretty damn close to free ($20-ish?). A reasonable laser is still pushing over $100 on sale.

Inkjet ink costs; dot-matrix ribbons unavailable (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 2 years ago | (#41148581)

Yes, ink-jet costs are ludicrous when you know the technology behind them, but the precision for price is so much better than the old days. Besides, we all finally dumped our LPT: cabled dot-matrix and ASCII printers, so there's not much choice. Laser just doesn't justify at home, and color laser is much higher.

Re:Inkjet ink costs; dot-matrix ribbons unavailabl (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41149037)

If you don't need color, a laser is DEFINITELY the way to go, even for home. I bought one for $70 five years ago (Brother HL-2040). My parents have gone through two inkjet printers in that time and a cartridge or two, and they probably only print a few times a year. A laser printer is going to be a lot more durable than an ink jet, and the toner is so much cheaper. Replace the cartridges twice over the entire life of the printer and you probably would have saved money buying a laser printer...unless you just happen to have a stockpile of free inkjet printers (which does happen with how often they're offered for free with [x]...)

Re:Inkjet ink costs; dot-matrix ribbons unavailabl (1)

Geeky (90998) | about 2 years ago | (#41149115)

Laser printing is a lot cheaper than it used to be - even colour is cost effective at home. They probably aren't much good for photos - that's where the multiple shades of inks in higher end inkjets come into their own - but otherwise they're a reasonable home option now.

For photos, getting them printed online is cheaper and almost always better than using an inkjet anyway, unless you want to mess about with colour calibration or experiment with textured papers.

Re:Inkjet ink costs; dot-matrix ribbons unavailabl (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41149741)

Since half of my color printing at home is photos, color lasers are not cost effective at home, for me.

And I suspect many of us.

I will probably get a B&W laser soon, reteach the wife how to choose her printer, and put up with the 'PRINTRR"S NOT WORKING' screams, but it is no worse than now. After severl HPs and one Epson, I ahve a Canon MP620 that is not cheap to run, but is reliable and never fades or sputters ink. It's just a major PITA to get networked.

And I won't be buying an office style laser - too many kwh for me.

Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers... (4, Funny)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41148583)

...to follow suit, and wean consumers off the "cheap inkjet printer" crack pipe. I have a full-color (4 cartridge) laser printer that I virtually never need to change the toner on, and when I do it's invariably the black cartridge. My significant other, meanwhile, goes through inkjet cartridges like I go through socks. And I *love* socks.

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148741)

Laser cartridges can print a plenty of paper, but once something breaks - tie cost is going to be higher than the printer itself (i.e. better to buy another same one).
I had a color laser Lexmark which was ok in quality (better than any inkjet I had), but when it broke, it turned out to be very expensive (so much that we gave up on it).
Those companies anyway sell you printers for a low margin just to make up on materials later.

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41149097)

Same can be said for inkjet printers though, and in my experience they're a LOT more fragile. Christ, I've _dropped_ my Brother HL-2040 and it's still going just fine. My parents have an HP inkjet that hasn't been moved from under the desk since they bought it a couple years ago and it's already falling apart. Won't feed pages half the time, no longer prints color even with a fresh cartridge, the carriage jams...

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (2)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#41148785)

What model, been looking to replace our inkjet.

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41148973)

HP LaserJet 5MP; I've had it for years and only ever needed one minor repair (when the feeder broke). Printouts are crisp and professional looking, and laser toner doesn't smudge or blotch if you accidentally spill a little tea on it, unlike ink.

I'll grant that if you're printing out photos, a high-end ink jet printer is favored by artists for a good reason -- but those are the top-quality ones with 7 or 9 separate cartridges. Laser printouts on photo paper just don't look right to me.

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#41149275)

I'm going to guess you really mean HP Color Laserjet 5M. The Laserjet 5MP is B&W, and there never was a Color Laserjet 5MP. The Color 5M is definitely the one to have, as it has more standard RAM plus Postscript and the ethernet card.

Re:Now if we could get other inkjet manufacturers. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#41149203)

And I *love* socks.

Please tell us more.

Amen (2)

kryliss (72493) | about 2 years ago | (#41148613)

No more will I have to hear, "Can you help me get this Lexmark printer working?", "Yep, here's the box I'll help you pack it back up."

They have finally run out of Unicorn blood (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148625)

Unicorn have now been declared endangered, cutting of the supply of Unicorn blood for the ink cartridges.

kinda like ford stopping car production (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148707)

or microsoft stopping ... oh, i can so wish.

what does this lexmark make if not printers?

lexmark? ibm spinner?

In the long run? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148709)

I barely print anything, got my multifunction printer 2 years ago when it was on sale for $35(original price a little over $100) with the black and color ink included. It's still going strong. When I need to change the ink, I will just buy a new printer, as it's cheaper than buying the ink separately.

Re:In the long run? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148865)

"I need to change the ink, I will just buy a new printer"

And a perfectly printer goes to the landfill. Not exactly environmentally friendly.

Selling everything they do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148735)

How on earth does getting rid of only the product line that anyone is aware that you make a good idea?

Sure, they will "save on costs", but revenue will be zero when they have no product. I am not a wizard economist, but as far as I know, corporations can't exist on cost-cutting alone - there still has to be revenue.

Re:Selling everything they do. (2)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 years ago | (#41148889)

Hire a management consultant, and pay him in proportion to the cost-cuts he makes. He'll give you a brilliant explanation why cutting everything makes perfect sense. (You might not understand every detail, but you'll trust him, because somebody who charges that much has got to be smart.)

Refill Your Own (4, Informative)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | about 2 years ago | (#41148739)

Refilling your own cartridges is super easy if you pick the right printer.

Brother printers particularly are good, the cartridges (at least all the ones I've seen) are just ink receptacles, they have no electronics, just put more ink in job done.

Ink can be purchased on ebay etc in 100ml bottles or more, for a fraction of the cost of buying cartridges.

Even better, it's pretty easy to find good inkjets for a buck or two second hand, I've bought lots of them, most with empty cartridges, often complete with power and USB. Refill the carts, run a few cleaning cycles, and they work really well.

Re:Refill Your Own (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 years ago | (#41149481)

Frankly I've never had any luck refilling ink cartridges. In theory it's a good idea; in practice those ink refills gum up the print heads in no time flat.

The best decision I ever made was to replace my inkjet with a monochrome laser printer. What I lost in color I more than gained in reliability.

Lexmark is still around? (4, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41148751)

In Mid-2004 their stock was around $90. Now it hovers around $22.

It warms my heart to see the scum of the printer industry slowly die. Whenever I was asked about which printer to get, my answer was almost always, "Anything but Lexmark."

Re:Lexmark is still around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149219)

Scum of the printer industry? No. That would be Epson.

WTF (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41148769)

So what are they going to do if they stop making inkjet printers? I can't recall any other product that Lexmark made.

Anyway who is going to pay for the disposal of all those useless printers that you won't be able to get ink for now?
(Of course most people just threw them in the garbage when the cartridge ran out anyway - it was cheaper to buy a new printer.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148871)

this is MBA thinking - completely cost/efficiency focussed while assuming little or no impact on revenue and development.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149189)

They will claim to own UNIX and sue the whole world with abandon.

Re:WTF (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | about 2 years ago | (#41149763)

They do this:

Order the ink online (1)

millsey (1987618) | about 2 years ago | (#41148793)

Well, that's a suggestion I've heard, as opposed to paying full retail price.

Compared to other small all-in-ones... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41148831)

I'm a former office-supply store sales guy who dealt with these machines and all the pros and cons of HPs, Epsons, and Lexmarks and Lexmark is the most economical. They have a couple of models that print about a penny-a-page for the ink. That's a significant savings, even when compared to laserjet printers. Most mid-to-high end laserjets print for 1.5 to 2 cents per page. Lexmark's inkjets print for less money than that.

Re:Compared to other small all-in-ones... (1)

careysub (976506) | about 2 years ago | (#41149181)

I'm a former office-supply store sales guy who dealt with these machines and all the pros and cons of HPs, Epsons, and Lexmarks and Lexmark is the most economical. They have a couple of models that print about a penny-a-page for the ink. That's a significant savings, even when compared to laserjet printers. Most mid-to-high end laserjets print for 1.5 to 2 cents per page. Lexmark's inkjets print for less money than that.

In my experience, with one Lexmark printer if you did not print for a couple of weeks the cartridge clogged and could not be unclogged. Sure, there was a cleaning cycle, it just did not work. A cartridge that does not print cleanly is useless, so unless I remembered to print regularly and did not go on vacation, after a liitle bit of use the cartridges had to be thrown out. A theoretical 2 cents a page becomes 20 cents a page, or even $2 a page if you did not print much before the clog set in (this happened to me in fact shortly after I bought it and before I discovered its clogging problem).

It was an all-in-one so I used it just as a scanner for awhile, until its drive mechanism broke and it started slamming the scanner across the platen instead of, well, scanning. What a piece of junk. Naturally I have no experience with a second LexMark.

Re:Compared to other small all-in-ones... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41149229)

Really? I have a Brother HL-2040 laser printer, low-end (cheapest one I could find), and last I calculated I believe it was under half a cent per page for toner. And based on what others have been commenting here I was kind of starting to think I was paying WAY too much for that toner...

Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (3, Insightful)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 2 years ago | (#41148875)

Inkjet printers have a lot of advantages. They do a much nicer job on color than laser printers do. They're smaller, lighter, and use a lot less power. Moreover, the power they use while they are sleeping (which is most of the time for home printers) is a lot less than a laser printer. The only thing that makes them expensive are the cartridges which cost $15 to $40 a pop and don't last nearly as long as a laser toner pack. That's a shame because one of the inkjet makers (Lexmark, Canon, HP, Epson) could/should have stepped forward and started selling a refillable ink cartridge which would have had a simple refill valve or cap or something on top where you could take the $6 a quart ink and squirt it in to top it off. One quart would last for about 150 refills. That would make inkjet printers cheaper by far than laser printers. Why don't inkjet makers do that? The answer is that they could never get past the razor/razor blade idea where they make all of their money from the ink cartridges and the printer is just the 'razor' that people buy so that they will be locked in as a customer of the ink cartridge 'razorblades.' In this case, though, that way of thinking like an MBA is killing a very nice technology.

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | about 2 years ago | (#41149127)

Refillable cartridges just as you describe are readily available aftermarket items for many printers, just search Ebay

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149173)

Cannon sorta did this (or was it lexmark?). You could reuse the printer heads and just buy ink inserts and replace the heads separately. .
The problem is that the print heads on inkjets don't last very long (typically they are built in the cartage). And after 2 refills the print quality goes down substantially.
 

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149767)

This doesn't have to be the case. My first inkjet, a $700 Epson stylus colour (yes, the orignal, before they had model numbers, back when 720 dpi was incredible and not available in a laser printer) lasted for about 3 cases of paper before the rollers wore out and it was showing its age (not printhead wear, but after 10 years, the quality of other printers had made this one a little embarassing). The printheads were permanent, although they could be replaced if you managed to damage them. The cartridges were huge, lasted a LOT of prints, and were easy enough to refill, and were ONLY ink cartridges.

It's amazing to see how far print quality has come at the expense of longevity.

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41149295)

I seem to recall hearing that most inkjet companies sell the printers themselves at a loss -- the ink is so expensive because that's where they're actually making money. If they started charging more realistic prices for these things, the ink would be cheaper, but the printers would be comparable in price to lasers -- and I suspect many people would choose to go with a laser printer in that case. I mean the biggest complaint I hear about refilling inkjet cartridges is that it's an extremely messy process. With how cheap toner is, I doubt too many people would choose ink if the printer pricing was similar...

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149697)

Its similar to razors and razor blades. They give the razor away and charge a fortune for the blades. I know a lot of people that would just buy a new printer when their Lexmark printer was empty.

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41149927)

Yep. Check this out, regular price $20 USD. http://www.amazon.com/Lexmark-Z615-printer-ink-jet-18K6281/dp/B0002445QO/ref=sr_1_42?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1346168662&sr=1-42 [amazon.com] That's less than the cost of a set of cartridges, and it isn't even on sale. I've often seen printers like this on sale at local stores in the $10 range, and occasionally "free" as some sort of a promotion.

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 years ago | (#41149733)

the ink is so expensive because that's where they're actually making money.

It's not just expensive, printer ink is more expensive than human blood [consumerist.com] .

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41149971)

the ink is so expensive because that's where they're actually making money.

It's not just expensive, printer ink is more expensive than human blood [consumerist.com] .

With almost 7 billion factories making the stuff, I'm not surprised blood is cheaper than ink.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population

Re:Inkjets dont have to be so expensive... (1)

blackest_k (761565) | about 2 years ago | (#41149755)

Ink jet technology isn't dying its just the end of the worst inkjets ever.

There are decent Inkjet printers around although pretty much all have the ink tax, It might not be too long before critical patents will expire allowing more companies to enter the market and supply the Ink-jets we want to buy.

Personally my printing needs are met by a mono laser and a multifunction hp psc2175 inkjet both networked to an iomega Iconnect Nas running debian (the Iconnect is superb value once you have debian installed it uses just 5 watts)
With debian I can use the scanner over the network which is handy. I don't really use the Ink-jet for printing much but unlike many inkjets when you replace the cartridge you replace the print heads so it can survive infrequent use. My laser is the real work horse. The HP is mainly a copier and scanner for me. If I want good colour photo prints I just go to one of the many places which offer the service. I also don't print every shot I take and will usually do some work to the pictures I want at home first.

Anyway I doubt anyone will miss Lexmark inkjets, Thou I must admit i might struggle to find a modern printer which works better for me than that old HP.

YippeeiYaa!!!! (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 2 years ago | (#41149029)

Lexmark has long been the one of the leading banes of the inkjet printer business. Leading the charge with DRM built into inkjet cartridges that required you to buy /their/ ink. They were on of the worst vendors for lock in and lawsuits, getting lawyer happy and suing people who dared to try to bypass their DRM lock in.

They are an evil company and I have had great pleasure over the years steering many, many an IT purchase /away/ from Lexmark and towards other vendors that did not play their games. I would have to imagine that I was far from alone in steering business away from them.

Anyone got a good story about steering a sizable purchase away from lexmark they would like to share?

lexmark to exit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149207)

As a long time Linux user, all I can say is, who???

Inkjet printers fit my use case very well. (2)

RoverDaddy (869116) | about 2 years ago | (#41149233)

I probably print less than 100 pages a year. Maybe even less than 50. Yet when I need to print something, I really need to print something so having a printer at home is essential. And while I usually print b/w, I do sometimes need color. With this kind of low-low use and an occasional color requirement, a compact, dirt-cheap inkjet makes much more sense than a laser, even after high-priced ink cartridges are considered. And the fact that the same unit is a page scanner is a great bonus.

And Nothing of Value Was Lost... (1)

DrEnter (600510) | about 2 years ago | (#41149257)

I think the subject says it all.

ANOVWL (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 2 years ago | (#41149361)

The recounting of the worst experiences with printers has always started with "My Lexmark printer..."

Sad, but understandable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41149939)

...their ink cost (they only mark it up a penny or two for the consumer)
keep going up and up with no end in sight.

Having owned and dealt with lexmark printers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41150097)

I can only say I am overjoyed at this decision.

Network printers and scanners that need 150 meg drivers and create virtual ports rather than just implementing a basic print server (protip: a $3 uC will quite happily run a print server,) ludicrously expensive "pre-bate" cartridges that come with shrink-wrapped licences that would make your average software vendor wince, combined with print heads that are designed to burn themselves out and general "hard reboot ever 20 minutes for best results" engineering quality.

Srsly, fuck lexmark.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>