Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:16:38 +0100, Ken Blake wrote:

On 7/20/2020 10:51 AM, Jim H wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:59:41 +0100, in op.0ny0pr07wdg98l@glass,
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 05:02:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:47:50 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:42:58 +0100, Bennett Price wrote:

On 7/9/2020 5:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Every time I buy a new printer, it's changed. New stupid quirks,
different ink cartridges. But not faster, not better quality, nothing
useful. There was no need to make it different.

So far I've seen only 1 response that answers your question -
parallel-serial to USB to wifi-Ethernet and the addition of slots for
various sorts of memory cards.

To these I'd add that features like duplexing, and increases in speed
have gone up while prices have gone down. Ditto cost/higher resolution.

I don't think the changes/improvements are simply marketing ploys - how
often does anyone buy a new printer to get the latest? I'd guess most
folks replace an old printer because it has failed or can't connect to
a new computer. (I added an LPT/Parallel card to my desktop PC to
connect to a fairly old Laser.)

I had that problem where I worked which had Apple computers - in that case I bought adapters to go into the serial ports, cheaper and easier to fit/swap around than a card. But PCs tend to keep the old ports for a decade afterwards. I bought a motherboard with a serial and parallel port on the back about only 5 years ago. When was it USB came out?

So I think there have been improvements and corresponding cost
reductions. I'm still waiting for the print-what-I'm thinking about
feature.

But you've listed only a handful of proper feature changes. I bet you there are about 250 models of Epson inkjet ever made.

I bet there is a damned sight more than that. In Desktop printers
there is the Workforce Series, ET Series, XP Series, Artisan Series
and the Stylus Series.

In large format printers they currently list 24 different models.

They currently list 10 different models of Point of Sale printers.

Leaving out the point of sale printers, the various printer models
currently listed under 'Support & Downloads' a
Eco Tank Multifunction printers 18
Eco Tank printers 3
Multifunction Printers 118
Inkjet Printers 113
Large Format Printers 72
----
324

Apart from that, there will be a long tail of utterly obsolete
printeres trailing into the distant past.

Indeed. And since 324 improvements have not been made to
printers in that time, most of those were a complete and utter
waste of time and money. Presumably making a new one
requires a lot of expense of tooling.

The marketing folks want new products because "new and improved"
sells. (Which means they're really "sales folks" vs "marketing folks,"
but that's another story.)

Some models print more pages per minute than others, print both sides,
fax, copy, scan, etc, etc. Obviously more paper handling like two
sided is a completely different mechanical design. And faxing,
scanning involve both electronics and hardware. But what's the
difference between lasers that put out 10 ppm vs 5 ppm single sided
other than gearing and maybe fuser wattage?

Other than for marketing purposes the number of different printers
from one maker serves no useful purpose.

If one manufacturer just stuck to a single model and only
changed it every 10 years, they could make a fortune.


In a strictly rational world, yes. But in the world we live in it's
more likely they'd go broke... because too many consumers want
something "new."


And therfore because, if they don't have something new to sell, most
consumers will keep what they have and buty abything.

No, you buy a new printer when your old one breaks. Printers don't change enough to want to upgrade.

Never mind that it isn't improved... although it
might say it is... or the improvement might be inconsequential.

I think we all know folks who trade in their cars every couple of
years... sometimes just to buy the latest version of the same model.
Maybe the remote will start the new car when the old one didn't do
that. But maybe the remote will no longer lower the windows. If the
car hasn't been abused, "run hard and put away wet," etc., it's far
more economical to keep the car longer.

More economical? Yes. But the older car will be less reliable, and
that's another reason someone will decide to buy a newer car.

Not so sure on that. New cars have faults. Old cars have had them fixed.

The same isn't true of printers. If a printer dies, it doesn't leave you
stranded on a back road. And you can almost always replace it very quickly.

There are breakdown services you know. And you can do what I used to do, own two old cars. Can't start one, hop in the other, call the garage and tell them to fix it.

New car dealers and
manufacturers would be in trouble without these people who trade
often... and so would used car dealers.

Yes.

No. If everybody bought new then kept it until the day it gets scrapped, the same number of cars would be made. And nobody cares about used car "dealers".

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:41:14 +0100, Ken Blake wrote:

On 7/20/2020 11:16 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On 7/20/2020 10:51 AM, Jim H wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:59:41 +0100, in op.0ny0pr07wdg98l@glass,
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 05:02:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:47:50 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:42:58 +0100, Bennett Price wrote:

On 7/9/2020 5:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Every time I buy a new printer, it's changed. New stupid quirks,
different ink cartridges. But not faster, not better quality, nothing
useful. There was no need to make it different.

So far I've seen only 1 response that answers your question -
parallel-serial to USB to wifi-Ethernet and the addition of slots for
various sorts of memory cards.

To these I'd add that features like duplexing, and increases in speed
have gone up while prices have gone down. Ditto cost/higher resolution.

I don't think the changes/improvements are simply marketing ploys - how
often does anyone buy a new printer to get the latest? I'd guess most
folks replace an old printer because it has failed or can't connect to
a new computer. (I added an LPT/Parallel card to my desktop PC to
connect to a fairly old Laser.)

I had that problem where I worked which had Apple computers - in that case I bought adapters to go into the serial ports, cheaper and easier to fit/swap around than a card. But PCs tend to keep the old ports for a decade afterwards. I bought a motherboard with a serial and parallel port on the back about only 5 years ago. When was it USB came out?

So I think there have been improvements and corresponding cost
reductions. I'm still waiting for the print-what-I'm thinking about
feature.

But you've listed only a handful of proper feature changes. I bet you there are about 250 models of Epson inkjet ever made.

I bet there is a damned sight more than that. In Desktop printers
there is the Workforce Series, ET Series, XP Series, Artisan Series
and the Stylus Series.

In large format printers they currently list 24 different models.

They currently list 10 different models of Point of Sale printers.

Leaving out the point of sale printers, the various printer models
currently listed under 'Support & Downloads' a
Eco Tank Multifunction printers 18
Eco Tank printers 3
Multifunction Printers 118
Inkjet Printers 113
Large Format Printers 72
----
324

Apart from that, there will be a long tail of utterly obsolete
printeres trailing into the distant past.

Indeed. And since 324 improvements have not been made to
printers in that time, most of those were a complete and utter
waste of time and money. Presumably making a new one
requires a lot of expense of tooling.

The marketing folks want new products because "new and improved"
sells. (Which means they're really "sales folks" vs "marketing folks,"
but that's another story.)

Some models print more pages per minute than others, print both sides,
fax, copy, scan, etc, etc. Obviously more paper handling like two
sided is a completely different mechanical design. And faxing,
scanning involve both electronics and hardware. But what's the
difference between lasers that put out 10 ppm vs 5 ppm single sided
other than gearing and maybe fuser wattage?

Other than for marketing purposes the number of different printers
from one maker serves no useful purpose.

If one manufacturer just stuck to a single model and only
changed it every 10 years, they could make a fortune.


In a strictly rational world, yes. But in the world we live in it's
more likely they'd go broke... because too many consumers want
something "new."


And therfore because, if they don't have something new to sell, most
consumers will keep what they have and buty abything.


Terrible typos! Sorry. That should be "And therefore because, if they
don't have something new to sell, most consumers will keep what they
have and not buy anything."

Oh, I thought you were referring to this buty abything: https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-con...%2C 360&ssl=1
Well I think she has a nice but.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:45:38 +0100, Jim H wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:34:30 +0100, in op.0n2drskwwdg98l@glass,
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:52:19 +0100, Jim H wrote:

Best thing I ever did printer-wise was give up inkjet rinters and get
a laser printer. The cartridges are quite expensive, but they last so
long that they're about half the price of ink over the same period.

Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like inkjets
can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember those?)

Not all of them are good at photos just like not all inkjets are good
at photos. Low end lasers make fairly poor photos just like low end
inkjets do. If the primary purpose of a printer is to print photos,
you're going to have to buy a printer optimized to print photos.

I doubt any laser can make a good photo. Because as I said the ink cannot merge with the next colour.

That business of having to purge plugged nozzels with "liquid gold"
is ridiculous. And 3rd party ink has it's own set of problems. Maybe
there's a good combination out there, but who has the time to find it?

Toner is very very expensive. I buy ink, not cartridges, it comes in bottles.
£10 a LITRE.

OEM toner is cheaper than OEM ink per page by about 50%. I and many
many many (many) others have experience that says bulk ink (or ink in
general) is a problem in terms of clogged nozzles. Less of a problem
if you print every day, much more if only occasionally, Maybe at £10 a
liter it makes sense to own a printer that uses ink to clean itself
when clogged. I prefer to have a clearly printed page 10 seconds after
I click "print" vs a page with streaks much later. Life is too short
to deal with inkjet clogs even if you use cheaper bulk ink.

If you buy fake toner cartridges (I can't tell if you mean HP or non-branded when you say "OEM" - I'm not sure you understand what that term means), and fake ink cartridges, maybe you're right. But if you just buy the ink in bottles it's phenominally cheaper than toner in bottles. The actual raw product is cheaper, when you don't include lots of plastic containers.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:18:08 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

On 2020-07-21 10:45 a.m., Jim H wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:34:30 +0100, in op.0n2drskwwdg98l@glass,
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:52:19 +0100, Jim H wrote:

Best thing I ever did printer-wise was give up inkjet rinters and get
a laser printer. The cartridges are quite expensive, but they last so
long that they're about half the price of ink over the same period.

Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like inkjets
can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember those?)


Not all of them are good at photos just like not all inkjets are good
at photos. Low end lasers make fairly poor photos just like low end
inkjets do. If the primary purpose of a printer is to print photos,
you're going to have to buy a printer optimized to print photos.


That business of having to purge plugged nozzels with "liquid gold"
is ridiculous. And 3rd party ink has it's own set of problems. Maybe
there's a good combination out there, but who has the time to find it?

Toner is very very expensive. I buy ink, not cartridges, it comes in bottles.
£10 a LITRE.


OEM toner is cheaper than OEM ink per page by about 50%. I and many
many many (many) others have experience that says bulk ink (or ink in
general) is a problem in terms of clogged nozzles. Less of a problem
if you print every day, much more if only occasionally, Maybe at £10 a
liter it makes sense to own a printer that uses ink to clean itself
when clogged. I prefer to have a clearly printed page 10 seconds after
I click "print" vs a page with streaks much later. Life is too short
to deal with inkjet clogs even if you use cheaper bulk ink.


Thirteen years ago I got fed up paying for ridiculously overpriced in
Cartridges, which were forever clogging and wasting ink cleaning nozzles.

I threw inkjet printer and carts in the trash and bought a fairly
expensive Office quality Color laser printer. An Okidata c5150n.

It does beautiful presentation quality color prints, I know and accept
that it does not do best photos, for the few I do I take and have them
done at a local Photo store.

I use NEW toner cartridges from Media Science, not remanufactured or
refills, I pay about $135.00 for a set of 4 5000 page carts, CMYK and
they last me about 2 years.

I use a good quality 24 Lb Staples paper which runs about $10.00 a ream,
I use Their Gloss 32 lb photo paper for glossy prints.

In 13 years I have had about 3 or 4 minor paper jams, cleared in a
couple minutes and no other problems.

The Oki printer drivers supplied on CD still work perfectly in Windows 10.

I couldn't ask for anything better.

But you could ask for something cheaper.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:20:15 +0100, Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:


Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

I thought they all did that, and that inkjet was better because those 4 subdots merge together as the ink is liquid.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:40:19 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

On 2020-07-21 12:20 p.m., Paul wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:


Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

Paul

I don't know what method my Oki uses but the colours do come out great,
much the same as an inkjet, but obviously they won't be photo quality
due to the maximum of 1200 dpi.

1200dpi should be photo quality. My monitor is only 100dpi and that looks photo realistic.

Paul wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Colour lasers are **** at photos.* They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can.* It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

** Paul

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I
routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years
I've processed literally thousands of color images.

--
John C.

On 07/08/2020 10:50, John C. wrote:
Paul wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Colour lasers are **** at photos.* They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can.* It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

** Paul

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I
routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years
I've processed literally thousands of color images.


To whom are you responding, John?

Here, using Thunderbird, it appears as if you are responding to Paul.

In article , John C.
wrote:

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

photos from a laser printer are nowhere near as good as from an inkjet
photo printer for several reasons, including a limited colour gamut and
the inability to profile the printer.

"John C." wrote:

Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:

Colour lasers are **** at photos.* They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can.* It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I
routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years
I've processed literally thousands of color images.

Inkjets bleed preventing fine detail or sharp delineation. Bleeding is
how blending is achieved. If you want a good photographic-quality
printer, don't get laser or inkjet, but get a dye-sublimation printer.
The printer will cost more as will the photo quality paper ink ribbons.
Or revert back to analog photographically to recapture the high density,
contrast, and brilliance of that photography technology.

If the photo shop is producing high-quality photo prints, unlikely they
are using a laser printer. Much more likely they are using a commercial
sublimation printer. What manufacturers call "photo printers" are not
actually photo-quality printers. They're just good enough for the
majority of consumers, but not for professional photographers.

Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers
looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost. Professional
photographers still use film cameras and develop on photo paper.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

When have you seen a 175 MP digital camera in a retail store to get the
detail of 35mm film, or 313 MP or 2 GP digital cameras to get the detail
of 2-1/4" or 4x5" film? And not in their rated megapixel, but in their
*native* megapixel rating? There are native 100 MP professional digital
cameras at $10K to $26K USD! And still they're deficient to film.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/b...-can-buy-today
PhaseOne XF IQ4, highest at native 151 MP. Cost: $52K USD.

It's like consumers getting used to the quality of calls they get with
cell phones. They've forgotten (or never experienced) how much better
was the quality of calls via POTS/PSTN. Even in a power outage that
takes out Internet access, TV, cell towers, and other communication
resources, the telco provides their own 48VDC power via battery backup
and generators on the wires, so landlines stay up during a power outage.
I still keep my landline for dependable and quality calling. VOIP
reduces cost but at the expense of quality and more susceptible to power
outages. Cellphones work when there is a power outage if the towers are
still powered (and others to them), so they survive VOIP during power
outages, but at lower quality. Landlines go last, but are higher call
quality when up. During a power outage, I can't use VOIP. No Internet.
Cell towers have battery backup (and a hot item for theft) and diesel
generators (which have to be fueled and started), so they're up;
however, you need to be within range for minimal signal strength not
just to make the call (which uses more power) but also to establish and
maintain a call. I can still call the power company using my landline
when VOIP and cellphone fail. You can always tell someone is using a
landline just be the quality of the audio compared to VOIP or cellphone.

Digital cameras have a long way to go in pixel density and definitely in
price before they can supplant film. Takes a /native/ 87 MP digital
camera to give the detail available with 35 mm, but pros use larger
film, so digital cameras need 2 GP to compete along with a huge decrease
in price. Digital photography (negating the cost of the digital camera)
is cheaper, not better quality. Hell, you don't even need batteries
with a film camera (unless you feel compelled to have auto-advance to
waste a lot of film and on the processing fees). Go to take a shot with
a digital camera, find the battery is dead, and miss the shot even if
you have another battery to swap.

Some old tech is still better tech.

On 8/7/2020 10:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"John C." wrote:

Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:

Colour lasers are **** at photos.Â* They can't mix the colours like
inkjets can.Â* It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember
those?)

Page 3 "Multi-level printing".
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf

Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image
files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser
printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that
is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall.

Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they
have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5"
pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're
store bought, don't have any color stepping.

And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I
routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years
I've processed literally thousands of color images.

Inkjets bleed preventing fine detail or sharp delineation. Bleeding is
how blending is achieved. If you want a good photographic-quality
printer, don't get laser or inkjet, but get a dye-sublimation printer.
The printer will cost more as will the photo quality paper ink ribbons.
Or revert back to analog photographically to recapture the high density,
contrast, and brilliance of that photography technology.

If the photo shop is producing high-quality photo prints, unlikely they
are using a laser printer. Much more likely they are using a commercial
sublimation printer. What manufacturers call "photo printers" are not
actually photo-quality printers. They're just good enough for the
majority of consumers, but not for professional photographers.

Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers
looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost. Professional
photographers still use film cameras and develop on photo paper.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

When have you seen a 175 MP digital camera in a retail store to get the
detail of 35mm film, or 313 MP or 2 GP digital cameras to get the detail
of 2-1/4" or 4x5" film? And not in their rated megapixel, but in their
*native* megapixel rating? There are native 100 MP professional digital
cameras at $10K to $26K USD! And still they're deficient to film.



Yes, but as far as I'm concerned, a good digital camera is close enough
to what film can produce that it's fine for me. Blow up the results to
make very large prints, and the difference would certainly be apparent,
bit since I never do that, it's not an issue. And mine cost nowhere near
$10K to $26K. As best I can remember it was around $350.

To me, a digital camera has a giant advantage over film cameras. I
seldom take a single picture. I usually take many, changing for
landscape to portrait, changing the optical zoom ratio, changing the
angle, moving a few feet this way or that, etc. Later, I look at all of
them on my desktop computer, and throw away all but the one I like best.
Doing the same thing on a film camera would be much more trouble, and
cost a lot more.

And especially if taking pictures of something moving, if you have to
change film, it may not still be there when you're ready. 35mm is bad
enough, but it can be much worse; many years ago, I used to use a 4x5
Graflex. That means changing the film for *every* shot.


It's like consumers getting used to the quality of calls they get with
cell phones. They've forgotten (or never experienced) how much better
was the quality of calls via POTS/PSTN.


That's not my experience at all. My cell phone and my VIP home phone
both have quality that match what I ever had with POTS.


--
Ken

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

Inkjets bleed preventing fine detail or sharp delineation. Bleeding is
how blending is achieved.

that is absolutely false.

If you want a good photographic-quality
printer, don't get laser or inkjet, but get a dye-sublimation printer.
The printer will cost more as will the photo quality paper ink ribbons.

nope. inkjet has a wider gamut, easily profiled and is also the most
cost-effective choice.

Or revert back to analog photographically to recapture the high density,
contrast, and brilliance of that photography technology.

analogue photography is nowhere near as good as digital and inkjet
printers, which is why the few film labs that still exist now have a
digital workflow and use such printers.

If the photo shop is producing high-quality photo prints, unlikely they
are using a laser printer. Much more likely they are using a commercial
sublimation printer. What manufacturers call "photo printers" are not
actually photo-quality printers. They're just good enough for the
majority of consumers, but not for professional photographers.

Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers
looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost. Professional
photographers still use film cameras and develop on photo paper.

nonsense.


https://www.kenrockwell.c

not only is he not a reliable source, but he makes up stuff for
amusement, by his own admission.

the particular link you cited was also 12 years old.

When have you seen a 175 MP digital camera in a retail store to get the
detail of 35mm film, or 313 MP or 2 GP digital cameras to get the detail
of 2-1/4" or 4x5" film?

there is no need for a 175 mp camera, given that ~8 megapixels is
sufficient to exceed 35mm film.

most slrs these days are much higher than that, typically 24mp, well in
excess of what's needed.

And not in their rated megapixel, but in their
*native* megapixel rating?

their rated megapixel *is* their native rating, except for sigma and
super-cheap toy cameras that can better be described as junk.

There are native 100 MP professional digital
cameras at $10K to $26K USD! And still they're deficient to film.

no they aren't. digital is much better and at a fraction of the cost of
those.


It's like consumers getting used to the quality of calls they get with
cell phones. They've forgotten (or never experienced) how much better
was the quality of calls via POTS/PSTN.

cell phone audio quality is much better than analogue pots, without any
of the static or hiss, and also has a higher frequency response too
(pots was limited to 8k).

Even in a power outage that
takes out Internet access, TV, cell towers, and other communication
resources, the telco provides their own 48VDC power via battery backup
and generators on the wires, so landlines stay up during a power outage.

that's what ups backup power is for.

I still keep my landline for dependable and quality calling. VOIP
reduces cost but at the expense of quality and more susceptible to power
outages. Cellphones work when there is a power outage if the towers are
still powered (and others to them), so they survive VOIP during power
outages, but at lower quality. Landlines go last, but are higher call
quality when up. During a power outage, I can't use VOIP. No Internet.

you can if you have a ups.

Cell towers have battery backup (and a hot item for theft) and diesel
generators (which have to be fueled and started), so they're up;
however, you need to be within range for minimal signal strength not
just to make the call (which uses more power) but also to establish and
maintain a call.

which is the normal scenario.

battery backup for cell towers does not mean a weaker signal.

I can still call the power company using my landline
when VOIP and cellphone fail. You can always tell someone is using a
landline just be the quality of the audio compared to VOIP or cellphone.

no you can't, since landlines use voip except for the last mile and
have for many years, and in some cases, the last few feet, entirely
digital to the demarc.

Digital cameras have a long way to go in pixel density and definitely in
price before they can supplant film. Takes a /native/ 87 MP digital
camera to give the detail available with 35 mm, but pros use larger
film, so digital cameras need 2 GP to compete along with a huge decrease
in price. Digital photography (negating the cost of the digital camera)
is cheaper, not better quality.

rubbish. digital cameras produce *significantly* better quality images
than film in every possible metric and have for many, many years.

Hell, you don't even need batteries
with a film camera (unless you feel compelled to have auto-advance to
waste a lot of film and on the processing fees).

nope. a battery is required for the exposure meter and for the
electronic shutter, plus auto-advance does not waste film either.

Go to take a shot with
a digital camera, find the battery is dead, and miss the shot even if
you have another battery to swap.

that's a fabricated scenario that rarely, if ever happens. it's very
easy to make sure the battery is charged before leaving.

far more common is being near the end of a roll of film and running out
at a key moment, then needing to rewind and reload for more photos.

film is also bulky and few people want to carry dozens of rolls. film
also needs to be kept cool, which is difficult in the middle of summer.
those who fly need to deal with airport x-rays, yet another issue.

these are very real problems, not something theoretical such as a dead
battery.

Some old tech is still better tech.

very little, and definitely not film.

On 8/7/2020 10:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

Sorry, I pressed "Send" too quickly. I meant to add the following:


Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers
looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost.


Yes, that's mostly true, but...



Professional
photographers still use film cameras and



....*most* of them do. I've known several who use digital cameras.

I'm no longer a professional photographer, but many years ago when I
was, digital cameras didn't exist and film was my only choice.


develop on photo paper.

You mean *print* on photo paper. Film is developed. The resulting
negatives (or with some color film, it's positive, not negative) are
printed.

--
Ken

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 03:55:01 +0100, Bill wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:

Toner is very very expensive. I buy ink, not cartridges, it comes in
bottles. £10 a LITRE.

Almost 20 years ago, a "refurbished" ink cartridge ruined my HP inkjet
printer (by leaking all over the inside).

I know just as many people who have had genuine cartridges leak.

But that might have been a
blessing in disguise, as I replaced it with a laser printer and have
since saved many hundreds of dollars in running a printer.

No, the cheapest way to print is with an inkjet and buy ink. That's just ink, not refilled cartridges, not fake cartridges, just the ink. Either put the ink into the cartridges yourself, or get one of those continuous ink systems that prints straight from the tank. It's the unnecessary buying of tiny little plastic containers that costs money. And worse with HP, since they insist on the heads being on the cartridge! Use Epson or Brother, and the heads are in the printer. You don't buy new heads again and again.

The color inkjet cartridge would go "empty" even if I didn't print in color at all
(a well-known "problem" for the customer). I don't really need color
printing for the most part--if I really did, it would be different. If
I do happen to need it, I can go to the office supply store and have
printing done there. Hope this may be helpful to someone.

Since you were using an HP I'm not surprised. I've never had a Brother or Epson lie about the ink level to con you into buying more.

In answer to the question: "Why are printers constantly redesigned with
no improvements?": The answer is surely because they found a way to
build it cheaper, the older model may have had warranty issues,

I doubt there are 300 faults to fix.

and because customers may be willing to pay a little more for a "new
model"-it helps keep the product "fresh", I think.

Nah, customers buy a printer when the old one breaks, not because they want it to look curvy.

Only commodities
seem to fail to be reinvented every year or so. Personally, I would be
happy with a commodity car, that was heavily discounted, but the
automakers don't want to play that game--Ford even mostly quit making
any sedans.

No idea what you mean by a "commodity car" even after using a dictionary.. Commodity means something you can trade with doesn't it? Like a bar of gold.

If you ask the same question with regard to televisions, the answer is
probably because they found a more effective way to sell your
"identity". The relative prices of televisions is pretty remarkable.

At least with TVs they keep improving. More resolution, less energy usage, larger, cheaper.

Graphics cards on the other hand, seem to be on the way up.

I noticed that (I assume you mean up in price), and assumed it was the same as with playstations, home gyms, freezers, etc. People are using them more during the virus.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:16:01 +0100, Bill wrote:

Bill wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

In answer to the question: "Why are printers constantly redesigned with
no improvements?": The answer is surely because they found a way to
build it cheaper, the older model may have had warranty issues, and
because customers may be willing to pay a little more for a "new
model"-it helps keep the product "fresh", I think.
It occurred to me that perhaps another reason is that it makes it harder
for a customer to buy a used printer that is "just like the new one" in
the store. In short, it decreases the lifetime of the particular
product. Think of this example, as soon at the 2021 vehicles are
brought forward, your 2020 vehicle, which you paid $35K for, look more
like a used clunker.. : )

Which is good for me, because they now depreciate quicker so 2nd hand costs less. Which er... in turn means people don't want to buy new anymore as it's a ripoff. The manufacturers shot themselves in the foot there!

When it comes down to it, all printers (and cars) will be used by someone until they die, whether they change hands or not. Changing the style will not make more be purchased. You'd need to make them die quicker to do that, and if you did that, then your brand would get bad reliability reviews and everyone would flock to the competition.