The State of Copier R&D

[JR2ALTA]

Bear with me.

What makes a good copier? I think, in order..

1. Good image quality
2. Affordability
3. Fewer jams
4. Networking capabilities
5. Ease of use
6. Tech friendly

Haven't these factors been in place for about 15 years?

So why the #&@% do manufacturers always screw up with their Research and Development?!

Why can't they leave the guts of the machine alone, stick with what works and fix what doesn't?

After all this time you think we'd have a machine that can pretty much go PM to PM or at least service consumables, operator errors and freak occurrences.

I know, I know, this crap keeps us employed. But beyond that, objectively speaking, why hasn't this beast been perfected? At the very least, for customer satisfaction.

Someone once told me that patents in Japan expire after only a few years and then anyone is able to use the technology. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Anyone that has serviced the Kyocera Falcon line understands whatI am saying. That thing just needed some modest network updates and voila it would dominate the market. The current line is a joke.

Konica decided it needs an iPAD style, sliding tablet. A sliding op panel? Are you serious? Who asked for that? Looks cool, but is impractical because people need the damn keypad, and I can't wait till it's replaced for $$$$ on contract.

[ddude]

25 years ago a fellow technician and I wanted to go into business 'borrowing' the best technology from the best machines, and create the ultimate copier, built in America........ Yes, it was a dream we had, putting this into practice was way beyond what we could do.

I agree that the ability is there, why don't the OEMs do it? Read Dilbert comics, you may understand why nothing can get accomplished.

[Hansoon]

I sincerely believe that most technical changes made to our equipment are being made to "improve" production and optimize profits. Not to improve technical features or reliability mainly.

Hans

[JR2ALTA]

I sincerely believe that most technical changes made to our equipment are being made to "improve" production and optimize profits. Not to improve technical features or reliability mainly. Hans

Well, that was the point of my little rant. It begs the question, wouldn't technical features and reliability ultimately be more profitable? How much profit can warranty returns on doomed components bring in?

[Hansoon]

How much profit can warranty returns on doomed components bring in?

-Profits are made in China

-Warranty is being done locally by us techs. Cost of parts is not a big issue but labor and traveling are expensive but for our account not for China man's.

So you can always try to save 0.000001 cent to replace that metal component with a flimsy plastic thingy. No need for extensive testing, field experience will show if it works or not and if not, it can be cheaply replaced with another piece of junk costing 0.0001 cent failing a little not so soon.

Hans

[Iowatech]

Part of it is due to the speed of the advancement of technology. There are new ways to make everything smaller, faster, and such every day. If somebody else picks it up and wins, you will be left in the dust of a collapsing buggy whip factory wondering what happened.
I think a larger part though is that statistics are used as first hand decision making information in the process. You know, this study says this so we will add this feature, that focus group says "ooh, shiny" so this system gets changed. While statistics are useful to indicate more hard research needs to be done, they really are not very accurate in and of themselves, they would have to include every living human being and situation on the planet to come even kind of close. Still, statistics, as they are, run at the speed of change, so that's why people use them right now, torpedoes be damned I guess.

[JR2ALTA]

Part of it is due to the speed of the advancement of technology. There are new ways to make everything smaller, faster, and such every day. If somebody else picks it up and wins, you will be left in the dust of a collapsing buggy whip factory wondering what happened.
I think a larger part though is that statistics are used as first hand decision making information in the process. You know, this study says this so we will add this feature, that focus group says "ooh, shiny" so this system gets changed. While statistics are useful to indicate more hard research needs to be done, they really are not very accurate in and of themselves, they would have to include every living human being and situation on the planet to come even kind of close. Still, statistics, as they are, run at the speed of change, so that's why people use them right now, torpedoes be damned I guess.

I don't get the buggy whip example.

All a fuser ever has to do is fix toner to paper.

All waste systems ever have to do is collect toner.

Some copier manufacturers make damn good ones, then the next model comes out and they redid everything really really poorly.

I understand some advancements, other not so much.

[Iowatech]

I don't get the buggy whip example.

All a fuser ever has to do is fix toner to paper.

All waste systems ever have to do is collect toner.

Some copier manufacturers make damn good ones, then the next model comes out and they redid everything really really poorly.

I understand some advancements, other not so much.

Sorry about that. The buggy whip thing is just an example of a technology like the horse drawn buggy whip that was one of the most useful things back in the day when everybody had to use horse based transportation, which is now no longer useful or needed. Or maybe a better example would be that analog copiers did all of the things that you said back in the '80s when I started working on copiers, and some of them did that really well too. Ever wonder why not even a single well known manufacturer makes analog copiers now?
The sad fact is that technology advances in ways we can't control whether we want it to or not.
And also thanks for completely ignoring the second and more important part of the point I was trying to make about statistics.

[JR2ALTA]

Sorry about that. The buggy whip thing is just an example of a technology like the horse drawn buggy whip that was one of the most useful things back in the day when everybody had to use horse based transportation, which is now no longer useful or needed. Or maybe a better example would be that analog copiers did all of the things that you said back in the '80s when I started working on copiers, and some of them did that really well too. Ever wonder why not even a single well known manufacturer makes analog copiers now? The sad fact is that technology advances in ways we can't control whether we want it to or not. And also thanks for completely ignoring the second and more important part of the point I was trying to make about statistics.

I know the analogy, just had trouble associating it with the topic. My rant was never anti-technology. It was about steps backwards. I'm sure I come across naive or nostalgic, that's fine. But don't forget, for every buggy whip there is a Coke II. To your point about stats, I get there's always a rationale for failure. Hence "the state of copier r&D" the stats, surveys, focus group and results are what I'm indicting.

[blackcat4866]

I think if you've been in this business any length of time you'll have seen setbacks in technology many times.

Like when they replaced the rock-solid Mita DC313Z with the DC1656 based platform. A couple of the changes good, most very bad.
1) Went from an Arsenic TriSelenide drum technology to the first really good organic drum.
2) From a halogen lamp exposure to fluorescent lamp exposure. (temperature sensitive, light output variable)
3) From a heavy duty bearing fuser to plastic bushings and rollers 1/2 the size (frequent bushing failure, increased curling problems, jamming)
4) From large boards to smaller more complex circuitry (touch a frame screw and watch the machine settings all reset to 0 value.)

I'm sure it was cheaper to make. I'm sure it used less energy. It had a smaller footprint. But you just can't take a platform designed for 16ppm and wind it up to 40ppm and expect everything to work the same way. This was Mita's first really dramatically stupid improvement.

The thing is, each time a new technology is introduced, like say film fusers, the manufacturer has to start from scratch learning what works and more often, what doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned this is a technology that has never been truly mastered right up to today's Kyocera Mita KM-6500/8500. I would be delighted if every fuser looked like a Mita DC5585. Two teflon rollers, two lamps, a cleaning roller and a web. We'd run these fusers until there wasn't a faint memory of teflon on the upper roller, and it never multiple-imaged, wrapped, or spit roller bearings. Konica Minolta has used this old/successful technology in it's PRO950 machines, which will do 1M prints with only a web change, and not a glance or a jam in between.

I guess I'll have to agree with Hans, in that it's not really about making the best copier. It never was. And these are the machines that require our attention, sometimes a lot of our attention. In the final analysis, no manufacturer ever asked me what worked best, and I'm sure they don't care what I think. We fix what needs fixing, and try not to look back at the really great machines we see along the way.

***end rant*** =^..^=