Why can't they just be replaced with what is essentially a normal/embedded PC, in the form factor of a printer/fax machine? Sending the "fax" simply emails a PDF of the scanned pages over the internet and then prints the "fax" automatically?
Just because there are technologically superior solutions is hardly what matters.
You need to factor in the experience of the users.
Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better.
Under certain circumstances, I would be more comfortable faxing documents somewhere than emailing a pdf somewhere.
They aren't suggesting that every user sets up their own raspberry PI, but instead suggesting that IT can transparently replace the technology.
Thank you for actually understanding and explaining what I meant. It's a nice change.
It sounded like you were saying you wanted to change the interface somewhat. The reason that I thought that was because if it was a 100% transparent interface identical to an existing fax experience, then there are already solutions like that, but we just don't notice them because they are so transparent.
Regular consumers sending faxes over copper already have their fax calls digitized, encrypted, and compressed. And offices have pretty simple solutions to manage fax numbers from their servers. I think Exchange server might be able to do it out of the box now.
The reason I compared it to the "dropbox" comment was that I think that it would be a case of needless over-optimization.
This is what the OP said:
> Sending the "fax" simply emails a PDF of the scanned pages over the internet and then prints the "fax" automatically?
Which, I read as implying that the user would have to enter something like an email address, to which I replied:
> Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better.
Of course, if an IT department mapped an POTS phone numbers to their mail server, and then had that email print out a pdf attachment on the other end, then yes, that would be fine.
But, actually this is done already in some places anyway. My old university had a system where incoming faxes were converted into emails and forwarded as email attachments, and I don't see why the IT dept could not have also configured it to automatically print out incoming emails, or even relay to an outgoing fax line.
But it does seem to me like a lot of trouble.
There is also iFax, which is supported by several vendors, which is essentially like a fax over e-mail. Many multipurpose fax/printer/scanner machines support it.
That is effectively what a modern dedicated fax machine is. They are very cheap commodity items. The issue here is not the hardware, but the use of faxes at all.