
Why aren't there any Open Source laser printers? - arbitraryuser
http://www.arbitraryuser.com/blog/2011/08/05/open-source-printing/
======
cpr
Actually, a lot of the PostScript clones use GhostScript internally. (I know
Epson does or did, in their lasers.) So a major part of his idea has already
been done.

Back when I was involved in the laser printer business (at the beginning, in
1980, where we (Imagen, a Stanford TeX project spin-off) built the first
typesetting-quality low-end laser printers), the main bugaboo was avoiding the
PostScript licensing cost. (I think Adobe charged $100's of dollars per
printer, depending on quantities sold.) We built a clone ourselves, but some
of the big hardware manufacturers just licensed GhostScript cheaply from L.
Peter Deutch. (Of Berkeley/PARC/ParcPlace fame, one of the great hackers.)

Peter first wrote GhostScript on a lark, just to see how hard it could be (not
hard for him ;-), then it became serious when he realized the demand for such
a product. (He released slightly older versions as OSS and licensed the
bleeding-edge version commercially.)

------
wzdd
One of RMS's motivations for GNU was frustration at a closed-source printer
_driver_
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Decline_of_MIT...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Decline_of_MIT.27s_hacker_culture)).
Given the challenges involved (patents, proprietary protocols, programmer
tools), you could view a quest to build the perfect printer as a microcosm of
the Free Software movement.

------
zwieback
Disclaimer: I'm speaking in no way for my employer, who built the laser
printer in question.

We've put a generation's worth of engineering into our printers and have a
huge supply chain advantage so for any price point you pick it would be very
hard to build a competitive laser printer, since printer manufacturers
typically take a very large loss on each unit sold.

But that's not really the question here - on my homebrew projects I usually
don't try to be cost competitive, it's about the learning, fun and pride in
the finished project.

I think the main reason there aren't any open source printers is that the
refill/counterfeit ink and toner markets somewhat solve the problem of
expensive supplies - you already get better hardware than you can build
yourself and you can get cheap non-brand toner/ink.

~~~
bradgessler
The point of an OSS printer isn't just for cheap supplies. I'd love to hook a
printer up to an email server so that I could send it PDFs and it would just
print. If I had an OSS all-in-one printer, I'd probably hack the scanner to
email me PDFs of documents that I scan from the ADF.

~~~
watmough
There's nothing to stop you trivially scripting either of these. I expect
Thunderbird or Mail can run scripts on incoming email, so you could have a
printing, archiving, grepping, forwarding email account, if you liked.

~~~
bradgessler
I want to run a server on the printer; not run the server on a PC that's
hooked up to a printer.

------
masklinn
> If there was an Open Source printer and reference design for the cartridges,
> reputable manufacturers could build those printers and cartridges and
> reputable retailers could import them without fear of legal battles for a
> fraction of the price. Most importantly, an Open Source designed cartridge
> would almost certainly be designed from the ground up to be easy to refill
> at home.

Which apparently happens by magic.

> Open Source Hardware creates a unique ecosystem. It is naturally
> competitive, pushing prices down on consumables and making sure that people
> pay for build and print quality rather than brands.

Right. That's the theory anyway, but "for some reason" (I'm sure somebody'll
find a nice conspiracy theory) there's pretty much no open-source consumer
hardware.

The question is this: what's the incentive? What's the incentive for a
designer to create open-source hardware (open-source software requires time
and a box worth a few dozens to hundred bucks, but that's pretty much it.
Open-source hardware also requires potentially expensive machines and a
serious investment in materials), and what's the incentive for a "reputable
manufacturer" when he already makes money hand over fist with "proprietary"
hardware? Why would that manufacturer (whether he's currently legit or
counterfeit) drive his whole business (especially consumables) into the
ground?

~~~
yock
There's no conspiracy, it's all in the incentive.

Existing open source software was all pretty much designed to run on existing
hardware. Free and open print specifications and interfaces couldn't run on
existing hardware, and hardware R&D sort of requires substantial financial
investment. It isn't really in the realm of your average hacker in his dimly
lit home office at 3AM.

Hopefully the success of projects like Arduino will make free and open
hardware standards a thing of the very near future, someday enabling us to
develop complex machines using unencumbered hardware standards, but like you
pointed out that just isn't today's reality.

The blog post describes an ambitious undertaking, and I think that's a good
thing. It really is something that feels long overdue, given how obviously
exploitive the current SOHO printing market is currently.

~~~
masklinn
> There's no conspiracy, it's all in the incentive.

That's the subject of my comment, but I'm sure somebody will assert a
conspiracy by "Big Printing".

> The blog post describes an ambitious undertaking

The blog post does not describe anything, the blog post asserts that 1.
somebody should design and manufacture open-source printing hardware 2.
Sprinkle fairy dust, rainbows and unicorns 3. Everything is awesome

And the starting point is mostly that TFAA thinks hardware is too expensive
and obtaining counterfeit consumables is a pain.

~~~
yock
The blog post asserts that these standards should exist, lists some non-
obvious things that will need to be developed by someone, and makes a case for
their potential profitability, albeit a weak one I'll grant you.

I don't understand why you're taking such a negative attitude with the
suggestion. Not every blog post on the world-wide web is written with the
intention of outlining the solution to the described problem, unless that's
really what you're taking issue with.

------
radarsat1
Actually it would seem a good idea, if someone could do this they could form a
company around it, selling the printers. That's a nice aspect of open source
hardware: unlike software, you can still make money off of instances.

Unfortunately it wouldn't work, because there's no way it would be able to
compete price-wise with the massive economy of scale afforded by the big
players in the industry.

~~~
tybris
Not sure, an open source 3D printer is already cheaper than most laser
printers.

~~~
ori_b
It's also got terrible resolution -- on the order of tens of DPI. It's slow.
And it breaks down constantly. (I've heard the makerbot nicknamed the
"breakerbot" thanks to it's constant failure).

Open source 3d printers are great hobbies. I love them, but they're certainly
nowhere near production ready.

------
Someone
_Printing is unreasonably expensive._

Huh? One can buy a laser printer for under $100, and print hundreds of pages
with the included cartridge.

Also, the logic in this post would equally well apply to computers, cars,
houses, pacemakers :-), whatever.

So, the main claim made here is "open source stuff is cheaper". From that, the
question "why isn't everything open source?" follows. IMO, that discussion has
been beaten to death multiple times.

~~~
jonknee
Indeed. I would agree that _inkjet_ printing is unreasonably expensive (for
text, can't get picky for photos). Laser printers are cheap as can be.

There's a trick to stretch the starter toner cartridge too, cover the optical
window with tape or black it out with a sharpie. You typically get hundreds of
more pages out of it (as someone who doesn't print much, it usually lasts
years).

~~~
brudgers
> _"Laser printers are cheap as can be."_

Not when you own a HP 2605dn.

[http://www.amazon.com/HP-LaserJet-Tri-Pack-Cartridges-
CE257A...](http://www.amazon.com/HP-LaserJet-Tri-Pack-Cartridges-
CE257A/dp/B001A27T4W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312549822&sr=8-1)

And despite the fact that that is most of the purchase price of the machine
when new, it does not include the black cartridge.

And yes there are alternatives, but this is the price the typical consumer
sees.

~~~
smackfu
Color lasers are still not at the consumer commodity level.

~~~
gmac
I disagree -- I'm very happy with Dell's 1320c, which I picked up from Amazon
for not much more than £100 ($160) and has non-original cartridges available
for about £12 ($20).

~~~
smackfu
In the US, it seems like you can't get one on Amazon for less than $200. Not
bad for a color laser, but B&W lasers are $100.

------
Thieum22
hmm let me guess (and there's a hint in the article) ... us patents ? A quick
research gives about 3757 patents concerning laser printing :
[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=laser+printing&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT)
. Apart from the fact that there are still efforts to be made to have the same
kind of "open source" activity in the hardware world imho.

~~~
jws
In 1991 I had a lovely little Apple Laserwriter IIg networked laser printer.
In the intervening 20 years all of the patents covering that device will have
expired.

Surely some of the subsequent patents have been related to making the printer
cheaper, so that could lead to a price disadvantage, but it should be possible
to make a fine patented free laser printer.

(of the many printers I've had subsequently, none have performed as well in
the "paper jam" and "mysteriously hung network printer" category. The IIg was
unable to reliably feed 6x8 envelopes, but other than that was perfect.)

------
nodata
This is more a patent thing than anything to do with open source. Remove the
stupid patents, get some competition.

~~~
zwischenzug
Do you need a patent to build something privately?

Surely part of the point of patenting is that the solution is published?

~~~
DougBTX
It's the other way around, you'll probably need a license for _something_ to
build a printer in private. Though since there are too many patents to read,
you'll likely only know if you've infringed one once you release to the public
and someone sues you.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _you'll probably need a license for something to build a printer in private_

Absolutely not. That's half the point of patents, research and personal use
are absolutely allowed. Commercial use is disallowed without a license and
[sensible] licensing can be forced by recourse to the courts in most
jurisdictions.

You can build the printer in private, you can't use it commercially or sell
it.

~~~
DougBTX
Could you point me to a reference which says that? The best I can do straight
off is Wikipedia:

US Law: _an infringement may occur where the defendant has made, used, sold,
offered to sell, or imported an infringing invention or its equivalent._

UK Law (where I am): infringement occurs ... _by the making, disposing of,
offering to dispose of, using, importing or keeping a patented product._

In both cases "making" counts as infringement, but IANAL, so those words may
well have special meanings which I don't understand.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You've excised the first part of that line of 35 USC that says something to
the effect of "not withstanding that set out elsewhere in this statute".

The UK SS60 does the same thing, "Subject to the provisions of this section"
(SS60(1)) means that you have to read the whole part, even down to UKPA
Section 60(5) which makes it clear that experiment and personal use are
allowed (not withstanding bad caselaw to the contrary that someone may
raise??).

------
larrys
"smiling in disbelief that we all seem to happily pay their ridiculous prices
and drink their kool-aid."

There seems to be plenty of competition and economies in printer
manufacturing. As opposed to cable companies for example.

If I remember correctly the initial Apple Laserwriter or HP Laserjet cost
about $8000 in today's dollars.

As others have mentioned I don't think the prices are outrageous at all.
Additionally you can get a great used 65 page per minute HP printer that takes
the high volume cartridges on ebay for < $350. (With postscript). (HP 4350 a
great volume machine). The ink costs much less per page with the high volume
machines and the used ones if properly vetted work great.

This is really ridiculous with respect to the cartridges:

"They do this purely to make money. The fact that they do this is clear
evidence that they’re ripping you off."

~~~
kragen
Why do you think this statement is ridiculous?

> "They do this purely to make money. The fact that they do this is clear
> evidence that they’re ripping you off."

It sounds pretty ironclad to me. I think it's even been established in court
cases that manufacturers put chips in toner cartridges to create planned
obsolescence and prevent recycling. Are you trying to invent some
hairsplitting distinction between "create planned obsolescence and prevent
recycling" and "ripping you off"?

------
yason
Who's printing anything much these days, by the way, unless you run some sort
of a business? I'm down to maybe ten pages a year which I could do at the
local library at 10 cents each if it weren't for ruthless abuse of my
employer's printer. I've sometimes thought about buying one of the cheapo
laser printers just to have one, but never got around to that because I just
realized I haven't had a real, continued need for printing for maybe a decade.

~~~
dkersten
I recently got a laser printer and use it to print circuit board layouts for
etching (it needs to be toner).

The only actual paper stuff I've printed in the past year was contracts for
signing and rescanning.

------
gnaffle
Can anyone confirm that there are toner cartridges that stop working after a
set number of pages? I thought this only applied to inkjets. My (10 year old)
laser printer will happily print until the pages become unreadable - and then
some more and some more after shaking the toner cartridge.

I think an open source laser printer would be an insanely cool hardware
project. Although probably not cost effective due to the complexity, at least
you would know exactly why the paper jams occur!

But you never know, the IP0X open source hardware project has had great
success with getting chinese manufacturers to produce affordable hardware:
<http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=440> some of which can compete with very
expensive "mainstream" offerings.

~~~
cssndrx
I can confirm that Brother printers stop working even though the toner still
prints perfect pages. I couldn't believe that a company would program a
functional product to suicide, so I did some searching on the subject. There
used to be a hack that was possible to get Brother printers to continue
printing by covering an "eye" on the printer
(<http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/forums/laser/39806>). However, the new
Brothers (like my HL2270DW) no longer have this exploit available.

I feel that a company that would deliberately program its toner to stop
functioning, is questionable on moral grounds. It is purposeful destruction of
value. It hurts the environment and is wasteful.

~~~
icarus_drowning
I was able to get this to work on an HL2140 last year. I just taped a small
piece of construction paper over the eye on the cartridge and it happily went
about printing for quite some time- I made it through an entire ream before
the quality degraded. Since then, I always cover the eye on new cartridges
before I insert them and use the quality of the prints, not the printer
itself, to let me know when to buy more toner.

~~~
cssndrx
Ah yes, you're right. The hole was supposed to be on the toner, but the hole
no longer existed on the toner required by my printer (judging by toner/hack
pictures I found online and threads discussing the hack for my make). Glad it
worked out for you. Don't replace your printer!

------
napierzaza
The proposal is that an Open Source Printer be designed and adopted by a
manufacturer. Who will design the printer to be easily and cheaply refilled?
So, they will basically destroy any profit they could make by building this
sort of printer? And likely anyone who wants the driver will have to use the
CLI or compile the driver themselves?

Sorry OSS doesn't really meet people half way on this. And for a company to
remove the profit motive and make a printer that could infringe on patents for
printing tech is blowing smoke.

OSS has never been very good at the last mile. So I don't see any manufacturer
looking at the OSS plans and drivers and thinking that all the work is done.
It's probably half done.

As the OP said, the manufactures of printers ALREADY designed their own
printer. And they are making money from it. So why would they take some not
entirely complete design and use that while it hollows out how they make
money?

~~~
wmf
I agree that in general open source hardware does not make sense. In the case
of printers, though, there are a few companies like Kodak and Brother already
using the "make money on the printer and don't try to make it back on toner"
business model.

