F
Frank
Burt said:
And there's never one around when you need'm!
Frank
And there's never one around when you need'm!
Frank
I
Ivor Floppy
[..]
stated below.
Certain Epson's aren't too difficult to change the printhhead (assuming
you'd want to bother) - models like the C40 have heads that can (with a bit
of force) be clipped out. Re-alignment is the biggest issue with head
changing - it can be quite a fiddly process to get the nozzles printing in a
straight line after a head change.
You have to remember that Epson, HP, Canon etc. are in the business to make
money - there's no sense in them making a printer that lasts for years and
years when the technology only changes and improves slightly during that
period. The printer market is probably close to saturation point already
which is why the manufacturers have had to shift their emphasis onto cheap
printers and expensive inks to make any profit.
Never known anyone have problems with that.
It *would* be easy to make this replaceable but its unlikely for reasons
stated below.
Certain Epson's aren't too difficult to change the printhhead (assuming
you'd want to bother) - models like the C40 have heads that can (with a bit
of force) be clipped out. Re-alignment is the biggest issue with head
changing - it can be quite a fiddly process to get the nozzles printing in a
straight line after a head change.
You have to remember that Epson, HP, Canon etc. are in the business to make
money - there's no sense in them making a printer that lasts for years and
years when the technology only changes and improves slightly during that
period. The printer market is probably close to saturation point already
which is why the manufacturers have had to shift their emphasis onto cheap
printers and expensive inks to make any profit.
Z
zakezuke
You have to remember that Epson, HP, Canon etc. are in the business to make
Yes the purpose to any business is in the end to make money. But the
model is based on the disposable razor blade one. It seems to me that
every time they sell a printer they are doing so at a loss in the hopes
that you'll buy their consumables. Would they not stand to make a
larger profit if they didn't sell something at a loss but rather
continued buying consumables?
Yes the purpose to any business is in the end to make money. But the
model is based on the disposable razor blade one. It seems to me that
every time they sell a printer they are doing so at a loss in the hopes
that you'll buy their consumables. Would they not stand to make a
larger profit if they didn't sell something at a loss but rather
continued buying consumables?
A
Arthur Entlich
Although, if you look through the archives regarding my responses to his
unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
have seen Epson do that gives pause.
As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
that by now.
However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to try to
resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that some
major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
directly to the attention of their people.
Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.
The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
the marketing division must have made.
Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
brands offer better and less costly to run systems.
unfortunate Epson problems, I have come out swinging in protecting
Epson's reputation, I have to say that there are a number of things I
have seen Epson do that gives pause.
As you may know, I help literally thousands of people a year to keep
their Epson printers running and out of the land fill. I think
conservatively, I have helped personally 'save' well over 5000 units,
and with the internet as a conduit of information it could be 10 times
that by now.
However, there are several areas that Epson has been less than
forthright. You mention design issues and Epson's willingness to try to
resolve these with their customers. However, my experience is that some
major known design flaws are not only never announced for recall, as
they should, even if out of warranty, but are denied even when brought
directly to the attention of their people.
Secondly, the issue of the waste ink pads and Epson's lack of informing
the clients about the "useful life" issues is unconscionable. The
secret panel codes, later replaced with proprietary software is nothing
more than a money grab. Those waste ink pads could have been a
exchangeable bottle, or in a drawer to replace the pads at home.
The problem with the 870 and 1270 ink head early failures have NEVER
been acknowledged by Epson. And everything from the amount of ink used
on cleaning, the non-refillable ink cartridges and fake "recycling"
program Epson announced, to the supposed ink savings on individual ink
cartridges, to the purge required on the profession wide carriage
printer when changing Ultrachrome black matte to black gloss, because
Epson went to one purge pump for the whole printer are decisions that
the marketing division must have made.
Yes, Epson makes a basically good product, but their marketing and
design people really have a lot to learn, and they better do so soon,
because I suspect their market share will suffer considerably as other
brands offer better and less costly to run systems.
M
Marky
Arthur Entlich said:
You have covered a number of things in this reply t you are probably
correct, particularly about Epson changing direction in some areas. I said I
was not here to defend Epson but I would without question myself as I own
them and recommend them above other products to many friends and family.
After spending over 8 years taking calls it is my experience that tells me,
for the most part, that the majority of those calls were due to end-user
errors and completely avoidable. System/software compatibility issues that
are also avoidable but that's just part of the computer industry...system
vendors pile as much of the cheap untested (or barely tested) software on a
system to entice buyers who probably never use half of it in their day to
day affairs.
There were, of course, a few issues that came up and some that had some
persistence. The C series print heads not working on some units being the
latest. Some of these
were certainly due to design and/or manufacturing issues and Epson responded
by offering exceptions to their one year warranty.
It was, again, not all units that had the problem but Epson ended up
replacing many units simply because people had heard that they could get a
free printer by claiming theirs had suffered output issues. I personally
spoke with one customer who had the script down to a "T" and records showed
he had called on a number of units that were not even his. Nice guy.
I have, incidentally, recommended people to newsgroups like this and others
without going into details. I knew there were solutions available (some I
heard of on this very newsgroup) and was not afraid to let them know they
were available. I just couldn't name names without getting myself into hot
water. If it works, it works...go for it!
To be totally honest, the issue with the 1280/870 series was limited. Early
failure may have been truly a design flaw, but why did over 90% of the units
not suffer the same issue? We regularly recieved updates on our warranty
process and one in-house report found that over 4,000 units had come back
one year for warranty replacement and all that was wrong with them was they
were out of ink.
I know for a fact that corporations do not do recalls on a product unless
it's a safety issue where lawsuits run in the billions of dollars should
bodily harm result from the design flaw. When the number of failures fall
within a predictable range it is actually justifiable to simply deal with
them on a per case basis, again if no personal harm results from that flaw.
Over all, I would say that as a company Epson has made vast improvements in
their product line and support/service but would admit that manufacturing at
the entry level is a challenge, and one that no current company has
mastered. They are what they are...inexpensive...and we all should know what
that entails.
Personally, I got tired of people screaming and Americans otherwise acting
very badly over a $40 printer. It's a sign of the times...
A
Arthur Entlich
Thanks for replying Marky.
I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for that.
I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
this alone.
Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope, will
backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.
And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
environmental principals.
I like the printers, I am really disliking the company. It puts me in a
difficult position when people ask for recommendations. Epson could
command the marketplace if they made some major changes in their
attitude, and minor changes in their designs, and educate the public why
they were doing what they did.
In my opinion, they have taken the "easy" way out, and it will
ultimately prove to be not only destructive to their sales, but to their
clients and the environment. That's sad.
Art
I realize you may be in an uncomfortable or even impossible position in
addressing some of these specific issues, and I don't fault you for that.
I suspect many policies that get made, come from head office in Japan,
and I'm not sure Epson Japan understands some of western sentiment
regarding some of these matters. People here tend to be offended by
designs that thwart our ability to make our own choices, such as choice
of ink, choice of repair, and so on. Secondly, we expect the right to
know what the contract we are getting states. Epson keeps the waste ink
pad replacement issue and cost a complete secret. That's a consumable,
and a major limiting factor in the lifespan of the printer, and that
should be very clearly spelled out. I'm guessing it is actually in
violation of US law and other western countries to not reveal this. A
good lawyer could probably win a major class action against Epson on
this alone.
Epson's recent attack on 3rd party cartridge manufacturers, I hope, will
backfire, because this may also lead to more printers going into the
garbage. Again, I suspect a good lawyer will be able to prove Epson is
in violation of the Sherman and Clayton anti-tying legislation.
And finally, Epson's environmental record is truly without defense.
The pricing model they use which makes the printers too cheap and the
ink cartridges too costly, the non-refillable cartridges, and major
efforts to make the cartridges one use only, and the bogus recycling
scheme for the cartridges all show a complete disregard for basic
environmental principals.
I like the printers, I am really disliking the company. It puts me in a
difficult position when people ask for recommendations. Epson could
command the marketplace if they made some major changes in their
attitude, and minor changes in their designs, and educate the public why
they were doing what they did.
In my opinion, they have taken the "easy" way out, and it will
ultimately prove to be not only destructive to their sales, but to their
clients and the environment. That's sad.
Art
M
measekite
Arthur said:
Not me. It keeps the whores in check. However, I would like to see
legitimate high quality BRANDED by the mfg/formulator aftermarket
prefilled carts for specific printers sold in all of the channels that
includes stores like Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Costco as well
as legitimate online retailers like costco.com, circuitcity.com etc.
The printers are not too cheap but the carts are way overpriced. They
could probably make money charging 50% for the ink and maybe just dump
the under $100 garbage printers they sell. And that should go for all
of the printer Mfg. And Canon's printhead should be no more than
$25.00. User replaceable waste pads should be under $10.00. And the
printer mfg should sell a set of cleaning carts for $2.00 per cart.
M
Marky
Arthur Entlich said:
Actually, Art, I don't feel uncomfortable about anything here. Even when I
was working for Epson tech support I would answer as honestly as I knew how.
Some of us preferred to be ignorant to the industry and that suited me fine.
I probably could have delved deeper into other printer manufacturers dirty
laundry but that's not my style. I was doing what I liked doing...helping
people.
Trial lawyers love stirring the pot themselves...it makes for good business
and our current 'victim' syndrome works to their advantage. I wouldn't go as
far as to say that trial lawyers are scum, but I'd have to say I don't see
them doing consumers any favors. Like the tobacco settlement, the cost is
eventually passed on to the consumer and the corporations don't feel a
thing. Big auto, big oil and big asbestos learned this long ago as well
(except big asbestos isn't allowed to sell their 'consumables' in NA any
longer...at least not openly).
I'm sure the lawyers are looking at this right now but, again, that is not
always a good thing for consumers. I thought Epson sued for patent
infringements! That only puts people out of business who sell cartridges
that look and/or are designed like the ones that Epson produces. Refill kits
shouldn't be affected, and chip program software sales should go through the
roof (again, I don't really know how that works).
I am aware that Epson started a recycle program for ink cartridges that
awards points for returned cartridges. Can't remember the organization name
but it is non-profit that pays something like $0.40 per cartridge. It's a
start, and they are partly sponsored by Epson while taking in other
manufacturers spent cartridges.
The electronic parts that go into landfill sites is another story in itself.
My recent experiences with landfill sites didn't reveal any great electronic
(printers et al) dumping but I did notice a tremendous amount of furniture,
appliances (essentially big printers with more rubber and non-biodegradeable
materials) and plastic toys in the heap.
I was involved with the ISO 90001 program and always got a kick out of it.
Here is a company that produces products that, essentially, destroy forests
(paper products) faster than you can say "my duck is sick" and they were
pushing employees to conserve paper and energy. I accepted it as a start,
but always wondered about the millions of reams of paper their products went
through every year.
Irony at it's best...
<snip>
A
Arthur Entlich
Marky said:
I'm glad to hear that you were able to follow your muse within the
restricted company policies Epson and many other hardware manufacturers
dictate. I always found it particularly amusing when front line Epson
pre-sales people would deny the existence of a printer that was on
Epson's when site in another area of the world. I realize that some
printers might never make it to N.A. or change spec, but to deny its
existence "I'm sorry but no such printer exists with that model number"
was a bit humorous.
Trial lawyers ar principally out for make money, just like more other
businesses, and sometimes they also do some good. I have been involve
din numerous class acts and yes, overall the lawyers walk away with the
majority of the booty, and sometimes the client either gets little of
less than little as the corporation writes off the fines as a business
loss, or raises prices to compensate for the loses. But, since the
government really does its job of enforcing legislation and law, it
leaves few other choices. None the less, not informing people of the
waste ink pad limitation is wrong and needs to be dealt with somehow and
Epson sure ain't hearing me, so what choice is there but litigation.
Further, companies DO victimize clients, way too often, and it is often
not be mistake, but by design. Don't tell me Epson didn't sit down with
their engineers and their MBAs and figure out how to manipulate the
business model. They didn't stumble upon these "solutions" they worked
them out and how to profit by them.
Epson has done everything in their power to manufacturer a system where
only their patented cartridges will work. In so doing they limit the
ability for 3rd parties to come up with working consumable products.
Luckily, some smart engineers are just a few paces behind Epson's own
and figuring out ways to get around patent restrictions to make
compatible answers. It would be one thing if Epson was making designs
to solve real problems., but at least half and likely more of the design
"features" are about protecting their ink market. Worse still, some are
absolutely about protecting their ink market to the determine of the
functionality of the products.
Yes, that's the superficial side of it, (and I think the actual value
per cartridges i closer to .04 cents than 40), but you have to dig
deeper to find the fraud. The company Epson has contracted to do this
program had an established program of ink and toner recycling before
Epson came along. The company has non-profits, like schools, collect
cartridges for which they pay an equivalent to cash amount in points.
The company then allows the organizations to "buy" certain goods for
these points from them. The value of the points is not very high, and
gives a somewhat strange exchange rate, since they tend to use old
values for old technology. They also offer OEM ink cartridges from the
same companies they collect for, which I am sure cost them very little,
but that's all "above board" as far as it goes.
What isn't is specifically with Epson cartridges. The company actually
restricts how many Epson cartridges that can be shipped per mailing, and
only Epson has this limitation. Why? Because unlike all the other
cartridges, the Epson's are not reused or recycled. The others are sold
for refurbishing and refilled or at worse, some plastics and metals are
separated are recycled into other goods.
Not Epson's. Epson's cartridges are incinerated "in an environmentally
safe manner". Now, the fact that there really isn't a safe way to
incinerate a device that is made up of various plastics, rubbers and
metals and which has volatile solvents and potentially toxic colorants
in it, is one thing, but Epson implies these incinerators produce
"green" energy!!!
So, the truth is, Epson cartridges and their toxic waste components, are
burned into trash, polluting the air and the heat may be drawn off for
some use (maybe to shred the plastic, if they even do that?)
That's a very strange use of the term "recycling". I suppose burning
down a forest is also recycling, because it heats the planet, and
releases tons of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere for "reuse",
and makes all that land available for new trees to start growing.
That's because everyone who has a printer has a few dead or unused ones
in their basement of closet, feeling guilty about tossing them, but not
using them. Eventually those, and literally millions of tons of other
computer related technology will have to go somewhere. Right now the
majority is in storage, or the e-garbage has been shipped off to the
developing world for them to try to deal with, not as working computers,
but as reclaimable where they don't have the same labor costs, or water
and air quality legislation, so they burn off plastic insulation from
wires to recycle the copper, for instance. This, in spite of many
countries being signatories to prohibition from those exact types of
exports.
A lot of paper is made from recycled fiber now and almost all has some
recycled components. In most countries all the paper could be fully
recycled if the systems and awareness existed. I'm not suggesting paper
should be wasted, but it's an almost completely recyclable product. The
same cannot be said about ink cartridges, or printers, for instance.
Art
M
measekite
Arthur said:
While I am not in favor of all of the abuses directed at the consumer by
these mfg, it is well within their right to determine how to maximize
their profits any legal way possible.
M
Marky
Arthur Entlich said:
That's not really a good answer. I'd had a few calls on non-NA models but it
was quite simple to answer...if they were not manufactured in NA we don't
support them and if anyone needed information on them they could visit the
host country website. They may or may not be the same as products sold here
and we really didn't know. Many times products were released in the US and
support didn't know about it till they were actually getting calls on them
or shortly before. There were 'heads up" memos sent and we had to scramble
to find the information. But there were also times when products were not
released and we had to deal with customers demanding to know the details and
would not believe that we didn't have information.
Not sure if they're working on that now, but I really think that Epson would
have thought out the fine points long ago. Either that or they simply sit
back and wait for the litigation and then tie it up and drag it out till
they do or they have the game plan down.
That could well be, but so do many other companies and we seem to tolerate
it...Mickey D's has been pumping our bodies full of salt, sugar and fat
levels carefully manipulated to get us (those who eat there) to keep coming
back for more...Big auto has designed vehicles with a limited range and a
limited tank that ensures that we keep stopping in at Big Oil for more more
more...and who can compete with either?
Bicycles are not as popular as cars these days...even though they would
reduce the overall pollution and get people in shape so that they would both
live longer and fret less...we could probably toss the whole recycle program
in the waste basket and live happily ever after if we could remove auto
pollution from the environment.
Probably true, but I don't think that is totally wrong. Print heads failing
and waste ink pad engineering are probably bigger sins but, again, I would
imagine they are addressing those issues.
I realize that this is an issue of third party providers being put out more
than anything else. If there are people who have time to sit around and
figure out how to beat the Epson system so they can capitalize on their
design then why are they not simply making their own printers that work
better and use their own inks?
I'm not aware of all the details but, again, as far as I can see it is a
start. I realize that the other manufacturers cartridges can be refilled but
how many people actually do that and how many simply toss them in the basket
to buy more? I know that the Epson market share is up but they are not
monopolizing the printer/ink cartridge consumption anywhere. That means that
there are probably millions of non-Epson ink cartridges making their way
into landfill sites all around the world.
It would be interesting to know, but I really doubt that anyone has any
figures that could point out clearly that our waste programs are not
handling millions of non-epson cartridges simply because people in NA are
either not educated on the benefits of refilling inks or because they can't
be bothered. I would have to say that I am somewhat of an exception here in
Canada because I actually spend several hours every month bothering myself
with recycling.
Aside from my understanding that the recycling program in Canada is a farce
(and I can only add one and one together to know that the US is a bigger
joke in this regards), I still do it because of my personal ideology.
Knowing how most people in NA treat their environment it's amazing that
people here would decry the environmental dealings of any corporation. We
are, apparently, working towards better programs and pushing compliance but
the big picture shows we are far from being a civilization that can claim to
be 'aware' of the impact that our 'consumerism' has on the planet. The
dollar always wins...and we, as a part of this ecosystem, are offensive by
nature.
I haven't been following the hype. It is a far more complex issue that does
not allow us to lay blame on any one company for their shortcomings
concerning the environment. We, as consumers, are the ones who get caught up
in the hype. We tend to froth at the mouth till we get the biggest and best
products our budgets can afford (let's not talk about the national debt and
how credit is destroying our lives) without understanding the fine points
involved...like how does this product really affect my life even though I
can do with it what I am told I can do...by the hype...
Until we learn that we can live without a printer, car, computer, air
conditioning, and any of the many other luxuries that contribute to the
overall contamination of this tiny enclosed space we call home, or until we
are producing truly safe and environmentally friendly products, I really
doubt that any number of law suits are going to put a dent in the actual
problems of our environment.
I'd have to admit they could probably work on that a bit, regardless of what
I said above.
Unfortunately I am not aware of where our egarbage goes so I'd have to take
your word for it. I had read only recently that someone had figured out a
way to recycle some of it but I don't have the article handy and cannot
remember the details offhand.
True. Many years ago I worked in the paper industry (corrugated) and was
enlightened about the paper recycling process. It was, of course, greatly
exagerated about how safe and clean the whole thing was since the
environment was becoming an item. Times have changed since then, I'd hope,
but far too often we are presented with eye-opening details that tend to
smash our hopes of ever being truly a 'safe' bunch of inhabitants.
We do have much to learn about harmony and balance and hopefully we learn it
before we inflict too much damage on ourselves.
Marky
A
Arthur Entlich
Hi Marky,
Rather than address each point in your reply, because we are on similar
pages, and because we're beginning to get off topic, I'm just going to
discuss a bit about the idea of working on harvesting the "low hanging
fruit".
I am a firm believer in the "low hanging fruit" approach which is
discussed in a number of environmental models. What this approach
considers is that there are small changes in practices, specific
practices, which involves redirecting very specific changes in areas
that don't require reconstructing the whole nature of commerce or
transportation or reeducating the public to make them work, and to
facilitate change. These ideas work by directing change toward specific
businesses in specific areas where small changes of design or even
attitudes can redirect energy to clean up the act of many consumers.
So, when I speak of issues with, as one example, Epson and how they
handle their business models and product development, and I give
concrete examples, such as offering a waste ink bottle system rather
than those horrible waste ink pads, that could save printers from being
prematurely dumped, and from the ink within the pads ending up a leach
ate in the landfill. A change like that doesn't require a sea-change
such as "people no longer "needing" printers", because we all know that
not going to happen for years. if ever.
I go for the fruit that can be easily reached, because in fact, a good
70-80% of environmental fixes are of that nature. The last 30% or so
become costly and slow to change and may never be able to be resolved,
without revolutionary remodeling of how the human race operates on the
planet. But 70-80% "ain't bad".
I have been heavily involved in the environmental movement for almost 35
years now. I have worked with and fiscally supported numerous well
known and lesser known environmental groups, some which tried to change
the world and some which chipped away on the smaller matters.
As an example of a small matter, here in BC, back in 1990, most eggs
were being sold in styrofoam cartons. Why? Because they were being
sold for a few cents less per dozen in those cartons, A group of us
tried to figure out how this could be when we knew that the machines to
make the Styrofoam cartons, as well as the raw materials, cost more than
the recycled newsprint used to make the cardboard ones. What we
discovered was that the company that was selling the styrofoam cartons
was receiving government grants because it was a new business here.
Some people approached the province and asked why the government was
taking tax money and using it toward subsidizing an industry which was
detrimental to the environment and allowing that company to compete
against an established and environmentally safer method which was also
providing jobs locally. We basically told the government which was
trying to put forward an environmentally "correct" front, that if they
didn't pull the subsidy for the styrofoam machinery and manufacturing
we'd publicize the real reason that much worse packaging was cheaper
than the 100% post-secondary recycled containers. Magically, as soon as
the subsidy was gone, so was the styrofoam container, and it has never
returned within BC, and we are better for it. Yes, there is some
"imported" and specialty egg Styrofoam packaging still sold here, by
none from local co-ops.
We did the same thing with Micky-D. You'll notice that their styrofoam
packaging also disappeared in 1990. That was through a contractual
agreement between an environmental group I worked with and them to stop
using those clamshell packages for a 2 year period which, along with a
number of other changes in their menu and a few other things allowed
them to use the group's logo on their place mats. Those clamshells
never returned... why,? because Mikey-Ds realized they cost them more to
buy, much more to discard, and in negative publicity, and that their
clients didn't even miss them. Low hanging fruit. Millions of tons of
styrofoam removed from the waste stream worldwide, which originally used
CFCs to be produced, a major cause of ozone depletion.
So, will Epson fixing the waste ink pad situation, or coming up with
refillable or truly recyclable cartridges cure global climate change?
No. But each of these are small parts to the same jigsaw puzzle, and
the more parts we can identify and make better, the more into focus the
whole concept becomes.
Alberta has started charging a front end tax on high tech goods to
finance a recycling program. I'd like to see each item we purchase
evaluated regarding its birth to death impact on the environment and
taxes be charged based upon those values, so it would be cheaper to buy
environmentally safer goods. That would inspire manufacturers from
using designs that have negative impact because they will tax themselves
out of their pricing market. It becomes self regulating.
Anyway, I realize I've gone way, way off topic, but the more people hear
about these ideas the more likely they will begin to recognize there are
ideas out there to make this planet cleaner and healthier.
Art
Marky wrote:
Rather than address each point in your reply, because we are on similar
pages, and because we're beginning to get off topic, I'm just going to
discuss a bit about the idea of working on harvesting the "low hanging
fruit".
I am a firm believer in the "low hanging fruit" approach which is
discussed in a number of environmental models. What this approach
considers is that there are small changes in practices, specific
practices, which involves redirecting very specific changes in areas
that don't require reconstructing the whole nature of commerce or
transportation or reeducating the public to make them work, and to
facilitate change. These ideas work by directing change toward specific
businesses in specific areas where small changes of design or even
attitudes can redirect energy to clean up the act of many consumers.
So, when I speak of issues with, as one example, Epson and how they
handle their business models and product development, and I give
concrete examples, such as offering a waste ink bottle system rather
than those horrible waste ink pads, that could save printers from being
prematurely dumped, and from the ink within the pads ending up a leach
ate in the landfill. A change like that doesn't require a sea-change
such as "people no longer "needing" printers", because we all know that
not going to happen for years. if ever.
I go for the fruit that can be easily reached, because in fact, a good
70-80% of environmental fixes are of that nature. The last 30% or so
become costly and slow to change and may never be able to be resolved,
without revolutionary remodeling of how the human race operates on the
planet. But 70-80% "ain't bad".
I have been heavily involved in the environmental movement for almost 35
years now. I have worked with and fiscally supported numerous well
known and lesser known environmental groups, some which tried to change
the world and some which chipped away on the smaller matters.
As an example of a small matter, here in BC, back in 1990, most eggs
were being sold in styrofoam cartons. Why? Because they were being
sold for a few cents less per dozen in those cartons, A group of us
tried to figure out how this could be when we knew that the machines to
make the Styrofoam cartons, as well as the raw materials, cost more than
the recycled newsprint used to make the cardboard ones. What we
discovered was that the company that was selling the styrofoam cartons
was receiving government grants because it was a new business here.
Some people approached the province and asked why the government was
taking tax money and using it toward subsidizing an industry which was
detrimental to the environment and allowing that company to compete
against an established and environmentally safer method which was also
providing jobs locally. We basically told the government which was
trying to put forward an environmentally "correct" front, that if they
didn't pull the subsidy for the styrofoam machinery and manufacturing
we'd publicize the real reason that much worse packaging was cheaper
than the 100% post-secondary recycled containers. Magically, as soon as
the subsidy was gone, so was the styrofoam container, and it has never
returned within BC, and we are better for it. Yes, there is some
"imported" and specialty egg Styrofoam packaging still sold here, by
none from local co-ops.
We did the same thing with Micky-D. You'll notice that their styrofoam
packaging also disappeared in 1990. That was through a contractual
agreement between an environmental group I worked with and them to stop
using those clamshell packages for a 2 year period which, along with a
number of other changes in their menu and a few other things allowed
them to use the group's logo on their place mats. Those clamshells
never returned... why,? because Mikey-Ds realized they cost them more to
buy, much more to discard, and in negative publicity, and that their
clients didn't even miss them. Low hanging fruit. Millions of tons of
styrofoam removed from the waste stream worldwide, which originally used
CFCs to be produced, a major cause of ozone depletion.
So, will Epson fixing the waste ink pad situation, or coming up with
refillable or truly recyclable cartridges cure global climate change?
No. But each of these are small parts to the same jigsaw puzzle, and
the more parts we can identify and make better, the more into focus the
whole concept becomes.
Alberta has started charging a front end tax on high tech goods to
finance a recycling program. I'd like to see each item we purchase
evaluated regarding its birth to death impact on the environment and
taxes be charged based upon those values, so it would be cheaper to buy
environmentally safer goods. That would inspire manufacturers from
using designs that have negative impact because they will tax themselves
out of their pricing market. It becomes self regulating.
Anyway, I realize I've gone way, way off topic, but the more people hear
about these ideas the more likely they will begin to recognize there are
ideas out there to make this planet cleaner and healthier.
Art
Marky wrote:
M
Marky
Kudos Art!
I applaud anyone who is actually involved with sorting out the mess that
government actions (job creation, business attraction et al) inflict on us.
I have a few tales of my own of a similar nature but they'd be better placed
in an enviromental newsgroup or one dealing with Health and Safety in the
workplace. You're right, we are way off topic...but that is an offspring of
the original complaint about Epson head clogging/leaking.
Small changes in the way a company does business or inovations of the
current product/consumable can be the best way to go. My original statement
was simply 'why don't they make their own printer' and that was more an
answer than a question. In cases where the manufacturer simply won't change
their production methods or their product to make them more
user/environmental friendly then, collectively, we should simply stop using
them. But we both know that won't happen, especially in Canada where apathy
is our strongpoint.
I think, however, that Epson, along with most corporations today, have that
on their mind. We all know that the printer industry is very competitive and
that companies are going out of their way (off the path) to stay competitive
while tuning into the issuse of the day. Or are they simply putting out
fires as opposed to proactively directing their attention towards a future
that enables them to manufacture their products without having to worry
about where their products will end up?
The ISO program that Epson spent considerable time and energy on is, as I
mentioned, seemingly a farce based on the overall impact that their products
have on the environment. Be it paper consumption or ink cartridge disposal
or the handling of the spent printers, we, as consumers, are driving these
corporations into action. This action may be good or bad depending on what
we are driving for (cheaper products in this case). Ideally, Epson would
take your lead and redesign their products to use cartridges that are
refillable or, at least, recycleable in an environmentally friendly way. I
don't really know what direction they will take but knowing how competitive
the market is for printers and how much they can make on ink cartridges I
can only hope that they will come up with something acceptable. In a
worse-case scenario Epson will simply carry on based on the actions of the
competition.
I followed a link someone provided on the topic of CIS and the heading on
the web page was "700 million ink cartridges find their way into landfill
sites" or something to that effect. The page displayed a CIS for Epson
printers but other manufacturers were listed in the offerings. 700 million
ink cartridges? Not sure if that figure was exagerated or if it was fact,
but that is one big heap of plastic!
Epson, as far as I can see, has adapted to the infringement on their sales
of ink cartridges. The low hanging fruit, as you call it, is tempting. It is
also driving companies like Epson to respond in an envrionmentally negative
way and I'm not really up to date on how the competition deals with the
situation. Does refilling ink cartridges or CIS solve the problem? What
about the containers for the CIS products that would need to be purchased
over time? Do these manufacturers offer a better solution or are they simply
offering a reduced price that entices people to buy their products over the
OEM?
Is this the best solution or is it merely a fix for consumers to get a lower
price on a consumable where they have no idea about environmental impact?
On a side not, I disliked the clamshell styrofoam containers (I dislike
styrofoam period) that Mikey-D's provided and avoided any of their 'food'
offerings that came in them. I was simply not aware that actions in BC were
the result of their recent change...and I thank you for your efforts. In
Ontario they changed only recently. Not that I frequent their fine dinning
establishments often, but I did notice they moved away from those horrid
containers. One small step for food...one giant leap for the environment!
Marky
I applaud anyone who is actually involved with sorting out the mess that
government actions (job creation, business attraction et al) inflict on us.
I have a few tales of my own of a similar nature but they'd be better placed
in an enviromental newsgroup or one dealing with Health and Safety in the
workplace. You're right, we are way off topic...but that is an offspring of
the original complaint about Epson head clogging/leaking.
Small changes in the way a company does business or inovations of the
current product/consumable can be the best way to go. My original statement
was simply 'why don't they make their own printer' and that was more an
answer than a question. In cases where the manufacturer simply won't change
their production methods or their product to make them more
user/environmental friendly then, collectively, we should simply stop using
them. But we both know that won't happen, especially in Canada where apathy
is our strongpoint.
I think, however, that Epson, along with most corporations today, have that
on their mind. We all know that the printer industry is very competitive and
that companies are going out of their way (off the path) to stay competitive
while tuning into the issuse of the day. Or are they simply putting out
fires as opposed to proactively directing their attention towards a future
that enables them to manufacture their products without having to worry
about where their products will end up?
The ISO program that Epson spent considerable time and energy on is, as I
mentioned, seemingly a farce based on the overall impact that their products
have on the environment. Be it paper consumption or ink cartridge disposal
or the handling of the spent printers, we, as consumers, are driving these
corporations into action. This action may be good or bad depending on what
we are driving for (cheaper products in this case). Ideally, Epson would
take your lead and redesign their products to use cartridges that are
refillable or, at least, recycleable in an environmentally friendly way. I
don't really know what direction they will take but knowing how competitive
the market is for printers and how much they can make on ink cartridges I
can only hope that they will come up with something acceptable. In a
worse-case scenario Epson will simply carry on based on the actions of the
competition.
I followed a link someone provided on the topic of CIS and the heading on
the web page was "700 million ink cartridges find their way into landfill
sites" or something to that effect. The page displayed a CIS for Epson
printers but other manufacturers were listed in the offerings. 700 million
ink cartridges? Not sure if that figure was exagerated or if it was fact,
but that is one big heap of plastic!
Epson, as far as I can see, has adapted to the infringement on their sales
of ink cartridges. The low hanging fruit, as you call it, is tempting. It is
also driving companies like Epson to respond in an envrionmentally negative
way and I'm not really up to date on how the competition deals with the
situation. Does refilling ink cartridges or CIS solve the problem? What
about the containers for the CIS products that would need to be purchased
over time? Do these manufacturers offer a better solution or are they simply
offering a reduced price that entices people to buy their products over the
OEM?
Is this the best solution or is it merely a fix for consumers to get a lower
price on a consumable where they have no idea about environmental impact?
On a side not, I disliked the clamshell styrofoam containers (I dislike
styrofoam period) that Mikey-D's provided and avoided any of their 'food'
offerings that came in them. I was simply not aware that actions in BC were
the result of their recent change...and I thank you for your efforts. In
Ontario they changed only recently. Not that I frequent their fine dinning
establishments often, but I did notice they moved away from those horrid
containers. One small step for food...one giant leap for the environment!
Marky
A
Arthur Entlich
To move back on topic, I'm glad you brought up continuos inking systems.
I somewhat doubt they were designed to save the environment, but if they
help in doing so, more power to them. The model they use should indeed
help, especially the newer designs which do not use sponge/foam in the
cartridges and which work on a fluid damper basis. Those new cartridges
do not require replacement, can be cleaned and reused for different
inks, and are easy to monitor because they have clear sides.
The beauty of saving money is that it often, in a real economy, (not
like the false one created by the OEM manufacturers who sell their
printers for barely the cost of producing and distributing them) saving
money means saving from waste. Anytime waste can be captured and
redirected it becomes valuable and cost-saving, be it energy, time or
materials.
There is a company in Georgia, Interface, which makes carpeting. They
redesigned their whole business model and all their plants so that they
no longer "sold" carpet in the traditional sense. They now "rent out"
the life of the carpet. All the carpeting they sell is "bought back"
when it wears out as raw material for carpeting and other goods. That
meant redesigning how the carpeting was manufactured, what materials
were used, and new machines for recycling the older carpet coming back
once used up. There were found to be quite a few savings long term as
the business learned to lessen use of hazardous materials and find
secondary sources for materials from recycled goods. Today, although
either the first or second largest carpet manufacturer in the world,
their environmental impact is minimal.
With the savings, they have been able to keep their mills in the US
rather than go offshore as their competitors did. Their products are of
equal quality and about the same cost, but they are not only employing
Americans in an industry that otherwise finds that difficult to do, but
they are helping their employees with programs to enrich their lives.
This all happened become the CEO read a book regarding the "low hanging
fruit" concept and recognized he could incorporate some of the ideas.
As he recognized more and more that the company was having an improved
bottom line from each change, he kept going up the tree finding less
accessible fruit. Some fruit may have cost more to pick than it was
"worth" but by then, he was convinced of his ethical obligation to see
the process through because he wanted to prove even an industrially
"dirty" industry like a carpet mill could go to a "zero footprint", and
he has pretty much succeeded. It will be some years before the full
impact of those changes will be returned financially, but this is a man
with vision, and he board has supported him through this, because he was
able to convince them that it just made good sense.
Getting back to inkjet printers, I had hope, at one point that under the
stewardship of Carly Fiorina, HP would move in the same direction, and
lead the way toward changes in the inkjet industry, Sadly, it was a
false hope, as power got the best of her, and all the talk went nowhere.
It appears that unless some new visionary comes to play in this, the
answer will have to be pressure from government, the consumer and
legislation. Not the best approach, because it is scattered and there
are always many conflicting forces and agenda, but in the meantime,
refillable cartridge designs, permanent full chips, CIS systems, and 3rd
party/bulk inks may be the best we can hold for, and people like me and
others who continue to offer support to keep peripherals out of the
landfills, and offer other hacks and workarounds to lengthen the life of
what should be longer lasting and more durable goods.
Art
I somewhat doubt they were designed to save the environment, but if they
help in doing so, more power to them. The model they use should indeed
help, especially the newer designs which do not use sponge/foam in the
cartridges and which work on a fluid damper basis. Those new cartridges
do not require replacement, can be cleaned and reused for different
inks, and are easy to monitor because they have clear sides.
The beauty of saving money is that it often, in a real economy, (not
like the false one created by the OEM manufacturers who sell their
printers for barely the cost of producing and distributing them) saving
money means saving from waste. Anytime waste can be captured and
redirected it becomes valuable and cost-saving, be it energy, time or
materials.
There is a company in Georgia, Interface, which makes carpeting. They
redesigned their whole business model and all their plants so that they
no longer "sold" carpet in the traditional sense. They now "rent out"
the life of the carpet. All the carpeting they sell is "bought back"
when it wears out as raw material for carpeting and other goods. That
meant redesigning how the carpeting was manufactured, what materials
were used, and new machines for recycling the older carpet coming back
once used up. There were found to be quite a few savings long term as
the business learned to lessen use of hazardous materials and find
secondary sources for materials from recycled goods. Today, although
either the first or second largest carpet manufacturer in the world,
their environmental impact is minimal.
With the savings, they have been able to keep their mills in the US
rather than go offshore as their competitors did. Their products are of
equal quality and about the same cost, but they are not only employing
Americans in an industry that otherwise finds that difficult to do, but
they are helping their employees with programs to enrich their lives.
This all happened become the CEO read a book regarding the "low hanging
fruit" concept and recognized he could incorporate some of the ideas.
As he recognized more and more that the company was having an improved
bottom line from each change, he kept going up the tree finding less
accessible fruit. Some fruit may have cost more to pick than it was
"worth" but by then, he was convinced of his ethical obligation to see
the process through because he wanted to prove even an industrially
"dirty" industry like a carpet mill could go to a "zero footprint", and
he has pretty much succeeded. It will be some years before the full
impact of those changes will be returned financially, but this is a man
with vision, and he board has supported him through this, because he was
able to convince them that it just made good sense.
Getting back to inkjet printers, I had hope, at one point that under the
stewardship of Carly Fiorina, HP would move in the same direction, and
lead the way toward changes in the inkjet industry, Sadly, it was a
false hope, as power got the best of her, and all the talk went nowhere.
It appears that unless some new visionary comes to play in this, the
answer will have to be pressure from government, the consumer and
legislation. Not the best approach, because it is scattered and there
are always many conflicting forces and agenda, but in the meantime,
refillable cartridge designs, permanent full chips, CIS systems, and 3rd
party/bulk inks may be the best we can hold for, and people like me and
others who continue to offer support to keep peripherals out of the
landfills, and offer other hacks and workarounds to lengthen the life of
what should be longer lasting and more durable goods.
Art