Piece of Junk Lexmark Printer

As many of us are getting ready to celebrate the biggest consumer oriented holiday of the year, I thought I would make a post about one of my biggest ever purchase mistakes.

lexmark

This is a 2 year old ‘all-in-1’ Lexmark printer with a built in scanner, soon to be discarded as a piece of junk.

It’s one thing to buy a printer of reasonable quality, and use it until it wears out after several years of normal use, to be replaced with newer technology.  It’s a totally different thing to be in a position like me of throwing away a relatively new appliance, in pretty good condition, because it was designed from the beginning to be obsolete and to intentionally become unreasonably expensive to operate.

As consumers we really need to reject products like this!

Chipped Ink Cartridges

Unknown to me when I bought this printer, Lexmark chips their ink cartridges in order to ensure other companies can’t make inexpensive generic alternatives and consumers can’t refill them.  A lot of printer companies do this, but Lexmark’s whole business model revolves around selling you a cheap printer, and ripping you off with ink cartridge replacements!

To begin with this printer uses an above average amount of ink, black plus 3 colors.  All these cartridges have an electronic chip in them that must be present or the printer will not function.  In addition, the printer tracks the amount of ink used, and when it ‘thinks’ the cartridge is empty you are forced to replace it, regardless of how full it is.

Along with this, Lexmark markets several series of physically identical cartridges, with different model numbers and chips.  Their more expensive printers use cheaper cartridges, and the cheaper printers use more expensive cartridges.  Even though these ink cartridges are identical, the chips keep you from installing the wrong model number for your printer.

On the Internet you can find a number of workarounds.  Moving the chips from one cartridge to another, cycling the power on the printer 5 or 6 times to make it ‘forget’ it’s already used a particular cartridge, and so on.  In the end, none of these worked for me, and all the suggestions did was cause me to buy slightly cheaper cartridges, incorrectly making me think I could make them work.  More wasted money on purchased junk to be thrown away.

Scanner

One of the reasons for getting this model was the scanner, in order to email and post documents.

As it turns out, the version of Adobe’s pdf software it uses to generate pdf files is incompatible with Apple computers.  It’s known the relationship between Adobe and Apple haven’t been good for a long time, but given the above mentioned constraints on this printer, you have to assume the reason this version of pdf is installed is intentional.

Do you remember a few years ago, when Microsoft promoted the used of Word documents in emails?  In this case the recipient couldn’t read them unless they had a current version of office on their computer.  It was intended to frustrate non-Microsoft users as well as those using older versions of Windows.  This is clearly the same idea, intended to frustrate Apple users as well as make me want to buy an upgraded printer.

Finished

So I’ve had enough buying ripoff cartridges and pretending it’s okay that Apple users can’t read my pdfs.  It’s time to throw the printer away.  I will never buy another Lexmark product, and indeed be suspicious of any store that even sells them.

Spread the word!

Noxious Weed

I’ve just been email chatting with Julien of the blog Noxious Weed.  He’s in France, and his blog is French and English.

Julien is a plant breeder, and is growing lots of interesting things in his garden.  His blog is worth keeping an eye on!

EU Commission Legislating Hunger and Poverty

A month ago I mentioned new EU legislation is being drafted to replace the current infamous ‘seed laws’.  It’s time for an update, and it’s not good news I’m afraid.

The normal procedure on this sort of thing is the EU agriculture ministers meet in a secret location, behind closed doors, and amend EU law with a secret voice vote, all totally immune to public opinion or accountability.  This time at least the legislation is following more formal procedures, and is being drafted under some public scrutiny.  Otherwise it seems like business as usual.  The legislation currently being considered is very draconian, represents a major set back for biodiversity, farmers rights and consumers rights, and the EU Commission doesn’t seem very concerned with any opinions from the pro-biodiversity side.

Two drafts have been tabled so far, and the trend is for a reaffirmation of the existing system, but with the removal of the few existing derivations (elements of flexibility).  There’s really nothing in this legislation to benefit biodiversity, with the exception of a non-binding introductory statement on the cover page.  The outcome of this legislation can only mean a continuing and acceleration of the process of spreading hunger and poverty around the world via EU trade policies.

In the past EU agriculture has been regulated with a series of patchwork directives, all interpreted a little differently under national legislation.  The measure being considered is a regulation, meaning it will come into force directly as EU law, without any flexibility of local interpretation.  In addition there are many pending elements of the regulation, ‘delegated acts’, which basically means they are to be decided later by committee.  This means we’re currently discussing a very abstract piece of legislation.

What we’ve all heard in the past is that politicians don’t want to spread famine and poverty around the world.  They say they themselves are not experts on this sort of thing and have to take the word of seed companies.  They say they never get any input from seed savers, as incredible as that seems.  It’s as if we’re all invisible or don’t exist.

Here’s my latest input, on behalf of all of you.  It’s proof this time we’re at the table, ready to talk.  This time they won’t be able to claim they haven’t heard from us.  They can’t say we didn’t warn them.

If anyone is interested in following the details of the legislation and/or participating in lobbying efforts, let me know and I’ll get more information to you.