- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,669
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 223
- Location
- North of Boston, USA
- Printer Model
- Canon i9900 (plus 5 spares)
Music Image,
I understand your concern about "planned obsolescence". As far as I am concerned, one of the many bad examples of this practice is the fashion industry. I look at a "designer" dress that sells for $500 and see a cost under $25. That's bad enough, but the fashion "designers" will purposely change the "style" by doing something like lowering the hem lines next year and the dress becomes a rag - not because it's worn out, but because the fashion industry has found an effective way to generate unnecessary sales. For the same money I could have purchased four IP4000s.
Every device that you buy has a "design life", but it isn't openly discussed. Why does your toothbrush wear out? Because there's more money in selling replacements than in making better bristles. Cars used to have a design lifetime of 100,000 miles. They have been greatly improved and I'm sure that the design life is now far longer than 100,000 miles, but they aren't designed for an infinite life or they wouldn't be competitive. The big diesel truck engines ARE designed for an almost infinite life, but even they must be rebuilt every 300,000 miles or so at a cost approaching that of a new car.
My $1,000 DSLR has a shutter life of about 20,000-50,000 shots. The professional models have many times this life, but they also sell for many times as much. If the shutter fails (I shoot about 10,000 shots/yr) before I upgrade to a better camera, it will cost about $180 to have it replaced, but I accept this as part of the operating cost for the camera. It would be nice if the shutter never failed, but when you consider what the shutter goes through when shooting at 1/1000 sec, it's not surprising that it eventually wears out.
In my job, we designed industrial machinery for an 8000 hr/yr operating life of 20-40 years. Even that is being changed by competitive pressures to "get the cost out", because some competitors have started the practice of designing for a 5-7 year life. When this is discussed with end users, they still want the higher quality but they often end up buying the cheap product because of the pressures put on them to keep their costs down. I remember one extreme case where the purchasing agent at a large company went with an option that saved $25,000 on the purchase price. When told that this would increase the operating costs by $100,000/yr, his reply was "That's in production's budget - I'm only judged on the purchase price".
From an engineer's perspective, I still say that these printers are a great value for the money. Canon's mistake was in being open and putting their design life in writing. Like Panos proved, this isn't a self-destruct setting. If you "baby" the printer you will benefit with an increased life, just like with your car.
I understand your concern about "planned obsolescence". As far as I am concerned, one of the many bad examples of this practice is the fashion industry. I look at a "designer" dress that sells for $500 and see a cost under $25. That's bad enough, but the fashion "designers" will purposely change the "style" by doing something like lowering the hem lines next year and the dress becomes a rag - not because it's worn out, but because the fashion industry has found an effective way to generate unnecessary sales. For the same money I could have purchased four IP4000s.
Every device that you buy has a "design life", but it isn't openly discussed. Why does your toothbrush wear out? Because there's more money in selling replacements than in making better bristles. Cars used to have a design lifetime of 100,000 miles. They have been greatly improved and I'm sure that the design life is now far longer than 100,000 miles, but they aren't designed for an infinite life or they wouldn't be competitive. The big diesel truck engines ARE designed for an almost infinite life, but even they must be rebuilt every 300,000 miles or so at a cost approaching that of a new car.
My $1,000 DSLR has a shutter life of about 20,000-50,000 shots. The professional models have many times this life, but they also sell for many times as much. If the shutter fails (I shoot about 10,000 shots/yr) before I upgrade to a better camera, it will cost about $180 to have it replaced, but I accept this as part of the operating cost for the camera. It would be nice if the shutter never failed, but when you consider what the shutter goes through when shooting at 1/1000 sec, it's not surprising that it eventually wears out.
In my job, we designed industrial machinery for an 8000 hr/yr operating life of 20-40 years. Even that is being changed by competitive pressures to "get the cost out", because some competitors have started the practice of designing for a 5-7 year life. When this is discussed with end users, they still want the higher quality but they often end up buying the cheap product because of the pressures put on them to keep their costs down. I remember one extreme case where the purchasing agent at a large company went with an option that saved $25,000 on the purchase price. When told that this would increase the operating costs by $100,000/yr, his reply was "That's in production's budget - I'm only judged on the purchase price".
From an engineer's perspective, I still say that these printers are a great value for the money. Canon's mistake was in being open and putting their design life in writing. Like Panos proved, this isn't a self-destruct setting. If you "baby" the printer you will benefit with an increased life, just like with your car.
. Id have to disagree about OEM inkcarts being a very reasonable price, and Im sure Im not alone on this, as is evident in this forum by other posters. From what Ive seen in my quest to buy a printer, the way the companies try to get you to buy their inks is nothing short of scandalous IMHO. Its back to that "the best of a shady bunch" scenario. 
