Printers are probably the most advanced computer-related technology. They never seem happy and complain all the time over having to do the simplest of tasks (as far as a teenager), that they have to sometimes even do the most difficult jobs. The Epson products may have little effect because it’s a bleak coding.
That is, Epson printers (probably all, but not certain) come with integrated end-of-life programming within their firmware. The printer, once a period of time elapsed, says it. I’m done now and that’s designed to be invaded from the start. In other words, they come from the box with a guaranteed redundancy built in the system.
Now, I’m totally aware of this, and I don’t know what it is like. It’s been known for some time. According to a report via the Verge, there seems to be a fresh wave of criticism against Epson for inserting such a system in the first place.
My wife’s incredibly expensive printer @EpsonAmerica delivered a message of an acknowledgment that it would have been gone to the end of its service life and began to brick itself. Maybe she can pay a lot to service it or buy a new one even though it was working fine. Outrageous!
Mark Tavern (@marktavern) July 22, 2022
Epson gets new critiques of Bricking End-of-Life!
In fairness to Epson, they’ve never denied the existence of the bricking technology and regularly insist on its existence there was a reason and a purpose. They design it into printers where it is detectable that the ink pads may have a possible fault. As such, the printer is unfamished (not functional), to guarantee no problems such as, for example, a fairly catastrophic leak. The function isn’t working, because Epson didn’t want to hear angry emails because of the fact that one of their printers dribbled a desk and destroyed furniture and equipment etc.
Just in case it had to be said, they never denied that, because they certainly didn’t make it a key point in their product marketing.
Is there a lawyer for the Devils?
But the rise of consumer outrage will be terrible and for some reason, since technology waste is such a crucial issue in many countries. And following the post above, Epson seems to be constantly raked over the coal for this, where the consumers should see it gone completely.
It should be noted to that as a home use is so rare, it would not exist when someone has this problem, even given the usual lifespan of a printer. The problem is more noticeable among the models that see the amount of work (office/business use, etc.) ranging from fifteen to twenty-five pages a month. Otherwise, you’ll likely never even come close to having this issue present itself.
For Epson, however, this is clearly a difficult problem. It’s a long time since the world does indeed understand it. The cynical point of view is that Epson has this in place to ensure that printers don’t stay relevant for too long (which means that it would be better if new and fresh purchases were encouraged). In this regard, whatever a tentacle I get, I doubt what a result is. The profit margin for printed printers generally is razor-thick. In fact, in the majority of general consumer models, printing is usually sold at a loss when money is re-recouped through ink sales.
Yes, as crazy as it might sound, I think Epson is probably being honest that this is not a safety feature, so it does not happen to me very well. They’re not going to want masses of civil cases over people suing for new desks, carpeting, and possibly a Monet and Picasso, they have just happened to have sitting on their printer.
There are some other ways consumers can understand what long their printer will last and more importantly, how long it will take. If Epson was a little more open about this, it would perhaps suffice to solve the problem for many people.
What do you really think about it?