I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Canon S520/600/6xx series
of printers because they are fast, produce good quality results and
have separate ink tanks which are cheap to replace.

When I purchased my S520 some 18 months ago, I was told then that the
printhead was expected to last about 5,000 pages and that the
replacement cost would be in the region of USD50. As the printhead is
clearly user-replaceable, I considered this to be similar to laser
printers, where the toner cartridge and drum are often independently
replaceable.

Yesterday the printhead failed unexpectedly; it will not print black,
and is not clogged, so clearly there is an electronics failure.

I went to purchase a replacement and was gobsmacked to find that
(a) they are almost impossible to get from any normal computer
wholesaler, at least in London.
(b) the cost has now risen to something like USD160!. This is pretty
much the price of the printer.

As a consequence I have purchased an Epson C86; the ink tanks are not
as cheap, but I feel seriously misled by Canon.

In particular, with dwindling global resources, I am appalled that a
perfectly serviceable printer, whose manufacture undoubtedly
contributed to environmental damage, cannot be repaired because its
manufacturer has decided to inflate the cost of an
end-user-replaceable spare part to outrageous levels.

There is no way Canon can convince me that the cost of this printhead
in any way represents the actual manufacturing cost. If this were so,
the cost of one set of ink tanks plus the printhead, which are of
course bundled with the printer itself, would mean that the entire
rest of the printer could be manufactured by Canon for perhaps USD5,
which is clearly ridiculous.

I realise that modern consumer appliances are often cheaper to replace
than repair. However, in this case, the print head was clearly
intended to be a user-replaceable consumable component, and I am quite
certain that when the printer was first sold, the cost of this
component was quoted at an entirely reasonable level, based on a 5,000
page replacement interval. Clearly, a printhead that only lasts 5,000
pages but costs USD160 is completely uneconomical; had I known Canon
would be so outrageously dishonest, I would never have purchased the
printer in the first place.

I have to say that the conduct of inkjet printer manufacturers
regarding the cost of consumables and the life of their products,
makes the car industry look like a paragon of virtue. It is high time
the EU took an interest in their activities. With declining oil and
gas reserves, global warming and worldwide pollution caused in part by
the manufacturer of consumer appliances, it is simply unacceptable to
foster this 'throw away' culture.

Although I have no reason to doubt what you have written, I sincerely
hope your information is somehow inaccurate.

It was appearing that Canon was one of the only companies showing some
real leadership in getting away from the "throw away" printer which was
basically a box to sell ink out of. They have reasonably easy to refill
cartridges, which are also relatively cheap even as OEM, they have a
replaceable and user serviceable head, and they are rumored to be coming
out with a one picolitre dot printer which will allow for the removal of
the wasteful light cyan and magenta inks.

Ever since Canon reintroduced their inkjets with their completely
redesigned head, I have been worried about the possibility of head
failure and either difficulty in locating them, or of, the head price
being inflated to make the printer cheaper to replace than repair.

Like yourself, I find the idea of tossing out an otherwise fully
functional printer abhorrent, wasteful, and environmentally unacceptable
and I do hope Canon is not falling into the same business model that
every other printer manufacturer seems to have followed.

I was just beginning to appreciate Canon for what appeared to be high
ethical standards in this market.

If anyone can offer contrary information to that which Andrew has
ascertained about head replacement on current Canon printers, I would
like to hear about it.

Art


Andrew Mayo wrote:

My S600 printhead failed a couple of weeks ago. Since I paid the grand sum
of $5.00 for this unit on EBay a few years ago, I wasn't really worried
about it and got a brand new i560 for $49.95. The S range of Canon printers
is discontinued and a new print head for the S600 would have been about $90.
They are not easily available as the OP stated, whichever country you are
in. I guess the cost of the printhead is offset by the cartridges which are
so cheap.

The S600 is sitting in the garage, along with an old BJC-8200 and an
S800.... all of which suffered the same fate as regards the printhead.
There's also an ancient BJC-4450 in there.... which still works but it's a
little slow for me nowadays!

Anyone want them for the cost of shipping? I call them my 'retired' units!
--
Cari (MS-MVP Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:i_S5d.120859$KU5.81567@edtnps89...

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.c om...
Agree with all you say, Andrew, except the bit about buying an Epson.
(Phrases like "shooting self in foot" come to mind).

I'm in the same situation with my S520 showing first signs of head problems,
have found just
http://www.systeminsight.co.uk/acata...ssemblies.html
for £77 which is indeed a silly price.

Maybe they are very expensive because they don't sell many because ...oh
well.

The 520 has been an excellent printer while it lasted, and more than covered
what I used to spend on film and photographic prints - wonder how long a
Pixma IP4000 would last?

Laurence

"Cari" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
news:vhY5d.1751$ls6.244@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
Hmmm, you do realize that Canon has a Customer Loyalty Program. This enables
owners of Canon products which are no longer under warranty to receive a
discount towards the purchase of a new product. It is also shipped (free) to
your door.

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.c om...
First I am not sure who quoted the printhead life to you, but I'd say they
were off. I currently own 3 Canon printers and have had 4 others in the
past. All have lasted 3 or more years and seen moderate to heavy use (6 kids
in the house) and never a printhead issue. In fact, I have only had problems
twice in nearly 8 years and both times had a replacement at my door the next
day.
As for cost of the replacement printhead, the original quote was actually a
little conservative, but not by much. The current price you were quoted I
would agree is way out of line and is about twice the actual cost (here in
the states at least). They are only available here from Canon Parts or a
service center and the service center can tack on what ever they want for
the cost of an out of warranty part. Even at the $60 cost though this could
be a good reason to go for Canon's Extended Service Plan. Unlike other
manufactures, they actually cover the printhead under their warranty and the
two year extension continues this coverage. So for about $50 you get 3 years
of coverage and basically have to worry about nothing but ink!

Recently upgraded under their Customer Loyalty Program to move up from an
old printer that was finally starting to give out on me after nearly 4
years. With the discount they offered under the plan and a extended service
plan, cost is still much less than originally paid for the old printer, got
a better printer and shipped right to my door for free.

"Laurence Wilmer" <l.d.wilmer@nojunkmailbluyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B9_5d.193$TP4.7@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I just got the iP4000 and love it.
Had an old S520 (4 years old) that started grinding about 1 in 10 times I
would use it after kids yanked a paper jam out of it.
After calling to see if cost effective to get repaired Canon offered me 10%
off the iP4000 and shipped it next day to my door free of charge. Not a bad
printer for $137 !!

In article PC Medic says...
is regarded as a consumable like ink.

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google. com>...

I'm curious if it was Canon itself who told you the price of the printhead
or if it was a salesdroid in a store that sells Canon printers that
told you the price of the replacement head.

I'd ask whomever (specific person) gave you the information to
sell you the 50USD replacement head. :-)

Mike

PC Medic wrote:

Do they also pay to ship the OLD printer back to them? If printer
companies are going to obsolesce their product by making replacement
parts impossible to come by or horribly overpriced, then they should be
stuck with the old hulk of a printer than has no use to the end user any
longer.

Art

"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:6i36d.166272$XP3.164851@edtnps84...
The built in obsolescence would be your opinion based on the experience that
your prematurely failed. I hardly find this to be the case in the many I
have owned.
They in fact do have a recycle program, but you pay shipping (about $13 I
think I have seen).
I mean come on, do auto, appliance or any other manufacture pay to ship the
old product back to them? I think not!

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google.c om...
<snip>

I agree. The QY6-0043 print head for my Canon i950 was $92.21 US plus
tax/shipping. Thats more than a lot of new printers.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:41:22 -0400, "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote:


already affected, and autos have a deadline of, IIRC, 2010. Computer
products are in there too, though I can't remember their cut-off date.

People over here are fed up with the amount of manufacturing detritus
ending up in dumps.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

PC Medic wrote:

Art Entlich wrote:
Just to clarify, I wasn't the person who had the printer fail, I was,
however, the person commenting on the short life span of printers.

I still have a 1974 car on the road. Although parts are becoming hard to
come by, they mainly still exist and it is 30 years old. I consider a 4
year old printer that is otherwise is good shape forced into
obsolescence when a part (the head) is nearly as costly as a replacement
printer. There are very few parts I can think of on a car which cost as
much as a new car. Further, cars are recyclable relatively locally in
most places.

The answer really isn't recycling a perfectly good printer, anyway, but
to make parts reasonably priced so one can continue to repair and use
it. Considering this is a user serviceable part, which require little
technical skill to replace, it seems particularly poor that the part
would be so overpriced. I suspect it bears no relationship to
manufacturing costs.

Art

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409270036.44776b10@posting.google. com>...

It's beginning to look like a large number of Canon 'S' series owners
have had printheads fail at about the 5,000 page mark.

I cannot locate the original specifications where I remember reading
this figure - I sure wish I could, and Canon's published specs are
notably silent about expected head life.

As another poster commented, the EU is going to require manufacturers
to manage disposal of their products. Even old inkjet printers are
useful to someone; for example, third world countries would be very
grateful for these printers - they would be happy to refill cartridges
themselves.

It is high time consumers started holding companies responsible for
their 'planned obsolescence' strategies. The car industry, for
instance, is much more responsible in this area. Sure, spare parts are
sometimes more expensive than we'd like but they are generally
available and 'third party' components like wiper blades are easily
substituted for manufacturer's original components.

Some manufacturers are more responsible than others, of course. In
this regard I'd like to single out the Japanese company Teac. About 10
years ago I still owned an old Teac reel-to-reel 4 track tape deck. It
must have been nearly 20 years old and I bought it second-hand.

The capstan roller and one VU meter lamp required replacement. Teac
still stocked parts for the machine, and replacements totalled the
magnificent sum of around USD5 (!!).

Another manufacturer with a good track record is the musical
instrument manufacturer Roland. I would also single out IBM for an
excellent track record in supplying service manuals (online!) and
spare parts (unfortunately, Lexmark printers don't seem to be
included).

If consumers held these companies to task for their policies, we might
see more than lip service paid to product support. The fact of the
matter is, that if consumables are user-replaceable, we have a
reasonable expectation that their price should fairly reflect the cost
to the manufacturer plus a reasonable markup. In the case of these
Canon printheads this is clearly not the case. Or, if it is the case,
Canon were selling the printers below cost, which is clearly dumping,
and already illegal in the EU.

It is probably unfair to single out Canon. HP, Epson and Lexmark have
all done some pretty shady things in this market because for some
reason there's been no regulation in this area. Sure, one individual
inkjet printer is a lot cheaper than a car, and produces a lot less
landfill waste, but the world has finite resources and we're rapidly
running out of them.

I intend to write directly to the Japanese CEO of Canon about this
issue. Unfortunately, my Japanese is non-existent, so I will have to
write the letter in English. I suspect it would carry a lot more
weight in Japanese. In particular, I can quite legitimately point out
that I have lost considerable face recommending these printers to my
friends and colleagues, only to find now that they are condemned to a
premature burial due to Canon's questionable business practices.

In my opinion Canon have a moral responsibility to make replacement
printheads available for a reasonable cost. Reasonable, to me, seems
like around USD50 or GBP25. Amortised over 5,000 pages this seems
reasonable and fair. I also suspect it represents a decent profit for
Canon without being unreasonable to them.

In the meantime, I can only reiterate caution over the purchase of
Canon's consumer products, if they entail the purchase of end-user
replaceable consumables. This would especially apply to laser
printers, for example.

The printhead QY6-0043 is regarded as a Canon part (not a consumable)
in the UK. It can be purchased from authorised canon parts resellers
which can be difficult to find. Cheapest I have found is from a
company called 'Interface Solutions International' in the UK. I have
bought quite a few of them for £40+VAT each + delivery & credit card
charge.

I buy quite a few products from Canon direct but they cannot sell me
any of the printheads for the newer printers. i.e. QY6=XXXX range. I
agree that it is a rip off. I can buy a Canon OEM 'BC-33e' for nearly
half the price of a QY6-0043 & that includes a full set of ink ! Where
is the logic in these crazy prices for the QY6=XXXX printheads when we
can buy a new canon IP3000 for around £69.00+VAT

ah

At least here in the USA, they give a full 1 year replacement on the
printhead or entire printer. After that, if you've signed up and payed
a minimal price for the 3 year extended warranty, the printer and
printhead will be covered for that entire period. That said, yes, I've
even bought a Canon that had to be exchanged twice (they paid for
everything, including shipping back and forth), but no cost here to me
to get a working one that has been running fine.

Otherwise, here in the USA, add to the junk pile and buy any <$40 inkjet
printer, and when the cartridges run dry, buy another new printer for
the set of black & color cartridges that cost the same as that new printer.

ajmayo@my-deja.com (Andrew Mayo) wrote in message news:<2b20cd9f.0409290349.4d3e98a8@posting.google. com>...

Then it could be illegal and you need to spend more for your printer.
You might send Canon a check for more money to set the example that
you'd be willing to do so. :-) :-)

But it's well known that consumer printers are sold for no profit
or at even a loss. The printers are also are sold/distributed
in large volumes while replacement heads (likely by far the most
expensive piece in the printer) would be sold in very low volumes.
They make it up in consumables. Any company that doesn't do so
won't sell any printers no matter how good the printer is (ask ALPS
about their Dye-sub printers that when they came out blew all other
inkjets to pieces despite runtime cost being about the same as inkjets).

You're saying they should stop making such big advances in printer
technology by firing their engineers and scientists so that printers
don't get dumped so quickly by people wanting the new models? Or
if a competitor comes out with a new model that's putting them under,
they should just file bankrupcy instead of countering with a new
model to compete?


I think I'll write to Rolls Royce. I think a reasonable price for
their automobiles should be about GBP15000 or so. They've got all
the same parts as other cars and they are ripping people off. Same
for Mercedes cars.


Mike

P.S. - Keep in mind there are costs other than parts cost when
doing business. A service-oriented company can easily go
bankrupt even though their "parts cost" is zero and all
revenue they get being "profit".

On 29 Sep 2004 15:08:57 GMT, Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

In the UK at least, there are a number of organisations accepting old
printers that are either obsolete or repairable. They will even take
printers that have specific problems and then cannibalise them to
repair others, then ship them to say, Africa, for use in schools. So,
yes, even one with a malfunctioning printhead may be useful.
--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

To further add to the miserable business model which has been adopted by
pretty much ALL printer companies, and particularly the inkjet
manufacturers, Epson recent announced in the US that they had associated
with a company called "FundFactory". FundFactory pay credits or cash to
schools for collected inkjet and toner cartridges, which I assume they
then either sell to refillers, or refill and sell themselves, through
perhaps another division of the company.

They accept Canon, HP, Lexmark and other brands of cartridges, but until
this agreement did not accept Epson's.

Well, now they do. Sounds good, eh?

However, if one goes back to September 14 of this year one will find
Epson had a press release in which they announced this new relationship
with FundFactory. They claim that through FundFactory the cartridges
will be recycled. However, the manner of recycling is rather
"creative". Epson has authorized the cartridges to be incinerated in an
"environmentally friendly" manner by a company which will generate
"energy" from them. In other words, they are having them burned.

Where I come from this practice is called "greenwashing". It gives the
impression a company is being environmentally friendly and concerned,
when they just want to "get rid" of the waste they are responsible for
creating.

The benefit to Epson is that they can make it look like they are
handling the problem of their non-refillable design (they include their
tri-color cartridges in this group) while they have the cartridges taken
out of circulation so the refillers can't get hold of them and undercut
Epson's sales of ink cartridges.

Further, the nature of the cartridges is such that they contain ink,
dyes or pigments which probably are metal salts, some possibly
containing heavy metals, plastic, adhesives, resins, and even a small
circuit board, epoxy and chip and these are supposed to be burned in a
manner that there is no impact on the air quality.

Finally, FundFactory limits each shipment of cartridges to them to have
no more than 100 Epson cartridges, and they only offer .5 points per
cartridge, which is worth anywhere between about 5 and 35 cents,
depending on what the school trades the cartridges in for.

I've written both Epson and FundFactory protesting this type of
greenwashing, and I am awaiting a reply.

I suggest we start pressuring our legislators to respond to this and
require stronger laws to control this type of abuse. If manufacturers
don't want to play fairly, then perhaps some stiff taxes on these
products that price them out of the market might get the companies a bit
more concerned about designing these printers and cartridges so they are
truly more environmentally friendly.

Art

Martin Trautmann wrote: