Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jopsen | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jopsen

Ink printer is a scam. We've known it for years.

How is this not ripe for disruption?

Honestly, I haven't bothered owning a printer, but if I had to -- I would probably try my luck at a laserprinter.

View on HN

Epson already disrupted it with cheap refillable EcoTank printers: https://epson.com/ecotank-ink-tank-printers

OEM refill bottles cost around 120 USD per liter when bought from office supply stores in small 70 ml bottles. Large non-OEM 1L bottles with quality ink manufactured in Germany cost 30 USD.

My mom just got one and it was nice to setup, but I read somewhere recently that people were discovering the hard way that the standard ink fades very easily. I think you can find archival inks though.

I have never heard of Wilhelm Research, but this pdf has a comparison of fade times, and the EcoTank is listed around ~2 years under glass, at least dark storage rating is >100 years for all of them

Edit; oops, forgot the link: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_Ink_Tank_Printer_Comp...

In fact all the major brands have this now. Even HP.

I'm still not buying HP but they do have these.

Printing is a late stage market. Why print when you have a tablet? E-docs and signing have replaced a huge amount of the market printing used to have. Add to that the pandemic that's pushed this even further.

Printing documents is a fading memory for many of us.

Printing photos well at home could have more demand than ever now that almost everyone carries a camera around with them all the time but that camera doesn't produce prints you can frame and put on the wall the way you used to.

There’s a Walgreens down the block from me. It’s cheaper and better quality than a home photo printer, and only a little less convenient.

It's unlikely that the Walgreens would have a better photo printer than a SC-P700 or SC-P900, they might be able to do larger format prints though.

>How is this not ripe for disruption?

good luck getting VC funding when your business model doesn't involve some sort of recurring revenue.

Indeed, I’ve never met VC comfortable with being labeled anti-drm around other VC.

Sad that "recurring customer" is not considered "revenue".

Maybe going the VC route is toxic.

The thing I find disturbing is how hard it is becoming for someone to bootstrap a business without going the investor-led route. Between the regulatory environment and the crazy amounts of money that businesses with big investors can offer to recruit staff even if neither the business nor the staff actually make any money yet themselves, in some industries it is almost impossible to compete simply by building a sound, revenue-generating business independently and from the ground up any more. I don't think this is a healthy trend but the economic incentives in our financial systems today make its dominance inevitable.

There isn't need for disruption - laser printers are almost always a better choice, people just don't know or aren't willing to spend the upfront prices.

Because SV disruption for printers would be Juicero for fax machines.

When I print artwork, inkjet is my only choice. I have an Epson for that.

For everything else, yeah, laser printer.

Oh yes. Epson P900: archival pigment inks, instead of dye inks, on good acid-free paper it's rated to last ~100 years (200 years for black and white) and everything is just absolutely gorgeous, and I can print 17x22" / A2 sized posters. This is what inkjet is made for.

Documents? Reach for the lasers.

>Documents? Reach for the lasers.

Maybe not if you want to print documents with security features :P

> How is this not ripe for disruption?

It’s called a Brother laser printer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com