Canon printhead is dead

[Arthur Entlich]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems a pity that the replaceable head
would be that costly, but in fairness, an Epson head not only costs
about the same (or maybe more), but also requires considerable labor
fees to have it replaced and adjusted.

Art

 

[Bill]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems a pity that the replaceable head
would be that costly, but in fairness, an Epson head not only costs
about the same (or maybe more), but also requires considerable labor
fees to have it replaced and adjusted.

That's why I would never even consider an Epson. With replacement heads
from Canon costing as much as %90 of a new printer, I don't consider it
to be convenient nor practical. Imagine the cost of having to do it
twice.

If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
than a page count.

No thanks...I've gone back to HP. No more worries about printhead
failures, alignments, cleanings, or anything...just plug&play printing.

 

[Al Rudderham]

If Canon had made the printheads available in stores at reasonable
prices (say $30) and had informed us of their TRUE expected life
upfront, I would have stayed with them. "Life of the printer" means more
than a page count.

Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
the profit comes from the consumables.

 

[Bill]

Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
the profit comes from the consumables.

You're suggesting a semi-permanent printhead is a consumable item?

<rant>
All of the printer companies make a killing from the ink and paper
supplies. There's no reason such a printhead needs to cost $60+ taxes
and shipping, especially if it's user-replaceable. Canon is just
gouging. Even if the printhead did cost that much to make (and I
seriously doubt it), they can easily afford to give them away cheap and
make the money back on consumables.

After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
to be.
</rant>

Whew...I feel better now.

 

[PC Medic]

Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers
(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
the profit comes from the consumables.

--

While you are partially right (the printers are sold at little or no
profit), the printhead is not a 'consumable' in this model or any current
Canon models for that matter. In fact, the biggest chuck of R&D expense now
goes into printhead and ink development. So while the OP may consider $40 a
'reasonable' price, I guess that is because they are not forking out the
millions for R&D.

 

[PC Medic]

You're suggesting a semi-permanent printhead is a consumable item?

<rant>
All of the printer companies make a killing from the ink and paper
supplies. There's no reason such a printhead needs to cost $60+ taxes
and shipping, especially if it's user-replaceable. Canon is just
gouging. Even if the printhead did cost that much to make (and I
seriously doubt it), they can easily afford to give them away cheap and
make the money back on consumables.

Sure glad you started this part with "<rant>".

With a majority of the cost of R&D going to ink and printhead development
and covering packaging, marketing, warranty (yes this is built into a
products cost), and more, printer manufactures hardly gouge in their
pricing. I would say this is especially true with Canon due to the fact that
they also cover their printhead under both the original and 2 year extended
warranties.

After seeing how well the HP printers can produce equal or better photos
with simpler and cheaper integrated printheads in their cartridges using
larger droplets, it's clear Canon isn't the technology leader they claim
to be.
</rant>

The number of patents they hold (#2 in the world) and the number of those
patents that HP and others license from them would say differently as would
several industry and consumer surveys.

 

[Bill]

With a majority of the cost of R&D going to ink and printhead development

That's fine...but it's all paid for in the consumables, likely paper
products alone. They're certainly not losing anything.

Sure glad you started this part with "<rant>".

Perhaps I shouldn't have. The rant was a warning to those who take the
post as excessively hostile. But the intent of the content is still
there.

and covering packaging, marketing, warranty (yes this is built into a
products cost), and more, printer manufactures hardly gouge in their
pricing. I would say this is especially true with Canon due to the fact that
they also cover their printhead under both the original and 2 year extended
warranties.

The gouging is mainly in regards to consumables. In this regard, Canon
has pretty much changed their view of consumable items, and a printhead
is now part of those items. They are charging prices more inline with
consumables than as a parts replacement commodity.

As I said before, if they charged a reasonable price (and where upfront
about the life expectancy), I'd be using my Canon i850 today. They can
easily recoup the measly $10-20 they lose selling the printhead at half
the current price from the first couple of ink tanks they sell the same
day.

The number of patents they hold (#2 in the world) and the number of those
patents that HP and others license from them would say differently as would
several industry and consumer surveys.

And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
licenses than Canon.

Number of patents and size of litigation departments doesn't necessarily
mean "best", just look at Bose and the junk they sell. It's what you can
do with the technology that makes a company stand out.
:-/

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Maybe they can't make a profit at $30? It is often said that printers

(especially the low end ones) are sold as a loss leader, and all of
the profit comes from the consumables.

This may well be true, but then the question still remains that if a
person burns out the head (likely from a lot of use), then they are also
going through a lot of ink. Since the manufacturer cannot ever really
know if the user is using OEM or 3rd party inks, wouldn't it make sense
for the manufacturer to sell the head as a "lost leader", just like the
printer itself, and sell even more ink, rather than have the client:

1) Have a printer without a head, meaning they aren't using any ink

2) Have a client replace the printer with another brand

3) Have the client bad mouth the product in a public newsgroup and
elsewhere.


Makes no sense to me.

Art

 

[PC Medic]

That's fine...but it's all paid for in the consumables, likely paper
products alone. They're certainly not losing anything.

You are correct there, they are not losing anything because they do not use
the practice which was proposed of pricing to take a loss.

Perhaps I shouldn't have. The rant was a warning to those who take the
post as excessively hostile. But the intent of the content is still
there.


The gouging is mainly in regards to consumables. In this regard, Canon
has pretty much changed their view of consumable items, and a printhead
is now part of those items. They are charging prices more inline with
consumables than as a parts replacement commodity.

And you are basing this on?

As I said before, if they charged a reasonable price (and where upfront
about the life expectancy), I'd be using my Canon i850 today. They can
easily recoup the measly $10-20 they lose selling the printhead at half
the current price from the first couple of ink tanks they sell the same
day.

They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that price.

And the photos I have in my hands shows that HP can do more with those
licenses than Canon.

This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so much
competition from Canon, Epson etc.

Number of patents and size of litigation departments doesn't necessarily
mean "best", just look at Bose and the junk they sell. It's what you can
do with the technology that makes a company stand out.
:-/

I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.

 

[Bill]

They do charge a reasonable price, just may not be reasonable to you. But
then YOU do not have to pick up the costs of all the items I mentioned and
show your share holders how you can remain profitable selling at that price.

That's a load of horse manure.

Everyone knows the profit is in the consumables. They could give the
printers away for free and still make a huge profit. So giving away the
printheads, or selling them at reduced prices sure isn't going to hurt
them.

But pissing off a customer, well...

This would be an opinion not shared by millions or HP would not have so much
competition from Canon, Epson etc.

Advertising and marketing is what makes sales.

I bought the changing "Canon line" about the printheads being able to
last the life of the printer. That was my mistake. Canon was unwilling
to help alleviate my concerns, and that was their mistake.

As for print quality, it's not just my opinion. I've shown the prints to
several friends in side by side comparisons to my photos I made with the
i850 only a few weeks ago. In every single case, they like the HP print
better. And that's with just the included four colours. With the
optional photo cartridge using six colours, the results are even better.

Granted, the HP 6540 is relatively new and I'm comparing it to a printer
that is almost two years old in design. Two years is a long time in this
industry. But having said that, I've compared four colour prints from a
Canon iP3000 and it's not quite as good as the HP either.

I did not say it did, but with some research on the industry you wish to
converse about you would see how many of them are important and award
winning patents as well as products. But then of course you had a bad
experience with a manufactures product so that is all irrelevant now.

I consider myself fairly objective...I should, since I work in a field
that requires objectivity.

I liked the results from the i850. It was fast, reasonably quiet, in
fact I raved about its performance. I was also willing to buy a new
printhead as well, but Canon shot that down by being unhelpful and
unwilling to even TRY to keep me a customer - refusing to accept a
printhead for return was too much. That's the main reason why I'm upset
with Canon.

 

[PC Medic]

That's a load of horse manure.

Everyone knows the profit is in the consumables. They could give the
printers away for free and still make a huge profit. So giving away the
printheads, or selling them at reduced prices sure isn't going to hurt
them.

You neglect to grasp that the printhead (ii Canon printers) is NOT a
consumable and claiming otherwise for the sake of trying to make your point
does not change that.

But pissing off a customer, well...

Only those that could probably never be made happy any way.

Advertising and marketing is what makes sales.

I bought the changing "Canon line" about the printheads being able to
last the life of the printer. That was my mistake. Canon was unwilling
to help alleviate my concerns, and that was their mistake.

Your case is the exception and not the rule AND you were admittedly out of
warranty. Could they from a customer service stand taken care of your WELL
OUT OF WARRANTY product, probably, were they obligated to? NO...will HP
should you have a similar issue...probably not. Then you can get yourself an
Epson...then a Lexmark...then a .......

As for print quality, it's not just my opinion. I've shown the prints to
several friends in side by side comparisons to my photos I made with the
i850 only a few weeks ago. In every single case, they like the HP print
better. And that's with just the included four colours. With the
optional photo cartridge using six colours, the results are even better.

Of course they did.
I am also sure many have shown their Canon, Lexmark and other male photos to
friends that were equally impressed with their choice. Fact remains it is
YOUR opinion and that I and thousands of others would disagree.

Granted, the HP 6540 is relatively new and I'm comparing it to a printer
that is almost two years old in design. Two years is a long time in this
industry. But having said that, I've compared four colour prints from a
Canon iP3000 and it's not quite as good as the HP either.

I'm sure in your eyes it is not

I consider myself fairly objective...I should, since I work in a field
that requires objectivity.

That Scary (IMHO)

I liked the results from the i850. It was fast, reasonably quiet, in
fact I raved about its performance. I was also willing to buy a new
printhead as well, but Canon shot that down by being unhelpful and
unwilling to even TRY to keep me a customer - refusing to accept a
printhead for return was too much. That's the main reason why I'm upset
with Canon.

Were you in warranty? Nope!
If your precious new HP breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or
repair it at no cost? ....probably not!
If your car dies 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair it at
no cost? ....probably not!
If your fridge breaks 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
it at no cost? ....probably not!
If your lawnmower quits 4 months out of warranty will they replace or repair
it at no cost? ....probably not!

Are you beginning to see a trend her? ........ probably not!

 

[Bill]

Are you beginning to see a trend her?

Yes...but my manners prevent me from typing it out.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

OK, let's see if I have this correct...

You are stating that the head is not a consumable in Canon printers,
meaning, I suspect, that it is considered part of the durable hardware.

Yet, unlike the rest of the printer, the head has a limited lifespan
which is considerably shorter than the rest of the printer, and "oddly"
the part is one of the few "user serviceable" parts (sort of like Canon
knew it would fail before the rest of the printer).

You keep on harping about warranty. I'm sorry but few of us buy a
product assuming the item will fail as soon as the warranty ends.
I drive a 25 year old car. It's been out of warranty for at least 20 of
those years, and it still works. None of the parts I've put into it
cost anywhere near the original cost of the car, in fact, considerably less.

I also have a number of Epson printers that are between 5 and 9 years
old, and they still work. They came with a one or two year warranty,
depending upon the model.

If the head on Canon printers is failing "prematurely" perhaps Canon
needs to rewrite their warranty. Perhaps they need to give the head a
special and longer warranty, or perhaps you can understand why someone
who had the head of his printer fail, which costs a large percentage of
the new value of the printer, only a few months after the warranty
expired, might be just a bit annoyed with the product and company, and
may choose to avoid the product in the future.

And should the problem become endemic, regardless of if it occurs after
the one year warranty, it may only be through the pressure of people who
feel shortchanged to make Canon respond to "do the right thing".

Now, I am not stating that Canon heads will widely fail prematurely, but
stating that because they have failed outside of the warranty makes it
OK, doesn't resolve a potential problem. If every brand XYZ car engine
failed within 6 years (a year out of warranty, let's say, for instance)
you better believe a lot of people would stay far away from them. In
fact, one brand which had a bad record for their build, redesigned their
cars and extended their warranties from bumper to bumper on their cars
to try to regain trust.

You should also be aware that consumer law varies in different states
and countries regarding "sale of goods" legislation. You've probably
noticed that every warranty states something like "Your rights may
differ" or "Your state/country may not allow for these exceptions or
exclusions". What that means is that some places legislate that the
warranty is not the be all - end all legal document. For instance, in
my province in Canada, the sale of goods act states that a product
should remain functional for the purpose for which it was manufactured
for a "reasonable time period" that an average person would expect,
based upon the value of the investment and what is typical for similar
products made by other manufacturers. In England, something that could
be classified as a manufacturer's design defect may have an extension of
the warranty required.

So, this is not a cut and dry situation, as much as you may wish it to
be so.

Art

 

[PC Medic]

OK, let's see if I have this correct...

You are stating that the head is not a consumable in Canon printers,
meaning, I suspect, that it is considered part of the durable hardware.

Yet, unlike the rest of the printer, the head has a limited lifespan which
is considerably shorter than the rest of the printer, and "oddly" the part
is one of the few "user serviceable" parts (sort of like Canon knew it
would fail before the rest of the printer).

This is not true. If the Encoder or NCU Board fails in a printer, does that
mean they to have a "limited lifespan which is considerably shorter than the
rest of the printer"?, no it only means a PART failed prematurely. Also,
just because it is user servicable, does not make it a consumable. An oil
filter or headlamp on your car are easily user serviceable and are
considered consumables, while a distributor cap or a starter would be
considered 'parts' yet they are both also "user serviceable". Whether you
choose to take the printer to a service center and verify the issue is the
printhead and install it for you or excercise your mechanical expertise and
drop it in yourself does not change waht it is...a part.

You keep on harping about warranty. I'm sorry but few of us buy a product
assuming the item will fail as soon as the warranty ends.
I drive a 25 year old car. It's been out of warranty for at least 20 of
those years, and it still works. None of the parts I've put into it cost
anywhere near the original cost of the car, in fact, considerably less.

I also have a number of Epson printers that are between 5 and 9 years old,
and they still work. They came with a one or two year warranty, depending
upon the model.

No one said you should expect it to fail as soon as the warranty ends, but
at the same time you can not generalize and say because yours did fail, that
it was by design! Happy to hear you got more than your money's worth out of
your car and your Epson printers. I myself had a 6 year old BJC-610 which
was 4 years out of warranty and still working like a champ that I recently
donated to a local animal rescue shelter. I also have a few other Canon
printers (several years old and well out of warranty) that still work as
well as the day I bought them. I have purchased more computer eqipment than
I can remember since the early 80's and have actually had a hard drive or
two and a motherboard die just out of warranty, certainly didn't expect them
to rewrite their warranty cause they failed.

If the head on Canon printers is failing "prematurely" perhaps Canon needs
to rewrite their warranty. Perhaps they need to give the head a special
and longer warranty, or perhaps you can understand why someone who had the
head of his printer fail, which costs a large percentage of the new value
of the printer, only a few months after the warranty expired, might be
just a bit annoyed with the product and company, and may choose to avoid
the product in the future.

See the part of the discussion about failures vs units sold. Every
manufacture will see premature failure of printheads, stepper-motors, pinch
rollers or some other part. It is the nature of mass produced products. You
can not test every piece and even if you did, you simply could not catch
every flaw. Now unless you are looking at a large percentage of failed units
you would not make a major change and if you did it certainly would not be
to rewrite your warranty as you suggest. I would certainly retool and
improve my product before simply adapting the warranty to meet the failures.

And should the problem become endemic, regardless of if it occurs after
the one year warranty, it may only be through the pressure of people who
feel shortchanged to make Canon respond to "do the right thing".

Well when it becomes epidemic be sure to let everyone know. And when it
does, I am sure Canon (or any other company) would in fact "do the right
thing". Problem is that it is not epidemic and while it certainly may suck
if something breaks out of warranty, it is something that you just learn to
deal with. The OP's item was 4 months out of warranty, lets say they fix it
for him free of charge, what do they then tell the guy that is 5 months out?
....6 months out .... 7 months out ....8 months out?

Now, I am not stating that Canon heads will widely fail prematurely, but
stating that because they have failed outside of the warranty makes it OK,
doesn't resolve a potential problem. If every brand XYZ car engine failed
within 6 years (a year out of warranty, let's say, for instance) you
better believe a lot of people would stay far away from them. In fact,
one brand which had a bad record for their build, redesigned their cars
and extended their warranties from bumper to bumper on their cars to try
to regain trust.

No one said it is "OK" when a product (Canon or any other) fails just a
little out of warranty, in fact I will tell you it SUCKS! It also does not
indicate a potential problem unless a large percentage are failing. Would I
give a call and try and sweet talk a replacement out of the manufacture?,
Maybe depending on the circumstances. If they did not replace my out of
warranty item would they become the scum of the manufacturing world?
Certainly not. Its called Bad luck, S**t happens, deal with it and move on.
As for your sample scenario, all I can say is bad example as you are saying
"If EVERY brand XYZ car engine failed within 6 years", this would imply ALL
or a VERY large percentage and that is not the case here.

You should also be aware that consumer law varies in different states and
countries regarding "sale of goods" legislation. You've probably noticed
that every warranty states something like "Your rights may differ" or
"Your state/country may not allow for these exceptions or exclusions".
What that means is that some places legislate that the warranty is not the
be all - end all legal document. For instance, in my province in Canada,
the sale of goods act states that a product should remain functional for
the purpose for which it was manufactured for a "reasonable time period"
that an average person would expect, based upon the value of the
investment and what is typical for similar products made by other
manufacturers. In England, something that could be classified as a
manufacturer's design defect may have an extension of the warranty
required.

So, this is not a cut and dry situation, as much as you may wish it to be
so.

Very cut and dry and I am well aware of warranty regulation from state to
state and country to country. Think "frequency" and "intent" and you may
realize it is also not quite the wide spread or complex legal issue that you
would like to think it is.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

PC Medic wrote:

Very cut and dry and I am well aware of warranty regulation from state to
state and country to country. Think "frequency" and "intent" and you may
realize it is also not quite the wide spread or complex legal issue that you
would like to think it is.

In my province, it is irrelevant how many units fail or the intent of
the manufacturer. The retailer is legally responsible, as the agent of
the sale. He can then go chase the distributor or manufacturer for
reimbursement. If I have a product which fails out of warranty, and it
is an unreasonably short lifespan for the relative value of the product,
I can ask the retailer to cover the cost of repair or replacement and if
the retailer refuses, I can sue and will likely win.

I have no idea how commonplace the head failure is on Canon's newer
printers, but there were some warnings that the lifespan was limited
when they first came out. I think the head should be rated in terms of
number of one color ink cartridges emptied, which is a pretty good
indication of use. I know HP has/had a series of printers which had a
"semi-permanent" head it it, and I saw the heads sold in store in the
same section as the ink cartridges. The heads were a bit more costly,
as I recall, than the ink cartridges. I think they required replacement
about every 10 ink cartridges, or something along those lines.

Art