Epson 7900 from the inside - out

[gwhitf]

I seem to recall reading in my 4900 manual that in such situations they recommend calling Epson technical support for a solution. Have you done that yet?

I did that the first day after reading this thread, weeks ago. I called Tech Support. Once determined that the printer was out of warranty, I got the canned impersonal response to contact Decision One. And that was that.

So much for your snide arrogant remark. Do you even own a 7900?

[Mark D Segal]

Sorry, there was nothing snide or arrogant meant or implied - you didn't say you had done that, so put yourself in the position of another reader - what was he to presume? There are people who run to web forums before they exhaust the discussion with their equipment suppliers, either out of frustration, fear or because the first person they spoke to didn't do them right. My suggestion - in case that wasn't done - was simply to exhaust that route first (including appealing for escalation if necessary) because one can often be pleasantly surprised. I was actually trying to be helpful. You don't know me and I don't know you, so please be mindful of how you react to what it is said in such circumstances.

[Garnick]

Sad but true,

There's been a lot of reference in this thread concerning warranties.  When I call Epson I simply give them my phone number and they take it from there, usually two or three minutes for them to get caught up on the issues with my 9900 and then back on the line.  I cannot complain about their service, but that's because my printer is still under an 'extended' warranty, which I will be extending one more time in a few weeks.  After that I'm on my own I guess, since three years seems to be the limit.  I suppose I could probably get a contract with Glodyne Decision One, but not sure I can afford that.  I have aired out just a few of my issues here in past posts and will not go there again now.  I will however put in another word or two concerning my belief that an extended warranty on the x900 series printers is an excellent investment.  Had I not taken that route after the first year I would have paid for another printer in repairs on the current one.  It's a great piece of business when it works as expected, and it is just that, a big piece of my business.  Therefore, I cannot be taking any chances on it being out of commission for any length of time.  The warranty is the best insurance policy I could possibly have taken and it has paid for itself in spades.  Just a thought.

Gary

[Ken Doo]

I hate hate hate buying "extended warranties."  But this is one of those times that in all likelihood, I'll be buying an extended warranty for my 9900.  She's simply much more finicky than my 9800 (which is still performing perfectly, btw).  The 9900 demands a bit more attention otherwise she becomes passive aggressive with needed nozzle checks generally appeasing her.  The 49/79/9900 series are simply more technologically advanced and require a bit more attention to workflow and details.  Yup, the extended warranty is probably a good investment in this situation.

Still waiting to hear from Eric on next season's episode/finale, and looking forward to picking up more maintenance tips on my printer....

ken  

[clic]

Mark, I think that one more guy has become somewhat impatient with your tendency to apologize for Epson every inch of the way, paired with assuming the best from them, and the worse from the users.  Had you paid attention, you would have remembered the story of this poor fellow a few pages ago on this thread.

Personally I was not born with a prejudice for or against Epson, I just wish they would take responsibility for what is clearly a manufacturing of engineering defect. warranty or out of warranty, period.  It is ludicrous to contemplate LLK drying inside the head, clogging and the like.  LLK is one of the most fluid inks in the lineup, one that hardly ever clogs (regular clogging) and it does not dry solid at air contact.  If by extraordinary it could have "solidified" it would have been dissolved by the cleaners that I have put in the channel, and instead, while there was no ink left to create clogging, the head kept "clogging."  The only logical conclusion is that there is no clogging going on in this case.  On another hand most head failures on x900 are extra overwhelmingly on the LLK channel, and anybody with logic and a reasonable understanding would start to assume that the likelihood of an engineering or manufacturing issue here is quite high, and certainly the first presumption.

The extended warranty is a solution for volume printers.  For others, it prices Epson well outside of the affordability range let alone that the alternatives are already roughly 50% less before the extended warranty.

Thank goodness for Epson that there are people like Mark distracting us from the real issues at play here, otherwise they might have a real problem selling their printers to more than a handful.  Oh and Mark, don't post any question toward me, even if you clearly have nothing better to do, I will not answer.  You have exhausted my patience, can't teach a donkey how to bark.

Epson should bite the bullet.  I have very good reasons to suspect that they don't know how to technically resolve the problem, prevent those premature head failure to occur.  But since the users are not responsible for that, and since we are talking of a relatively small numbers of users, it would be feasible and the honorable thing to do, to rescue that relatively small amount of people, just like they did with James Haswell (page 25), and emerge ahead in terms of image.  Don't you think?

[Mark D Segal]

It is unfortunate that you interpret my recommendations for objective analysis and logical procedure to be "apologizing for Epson every inch of the way". I have absolutely no interest in that and it makes no sense to impute that I do. I am also recommending disciplinary action to the moderator because referring to another forum member as a "donkey" is unacceptable behaviour under any circumstances.

[Garnick]

It is unfortunate that you interpret my recommendations for objective analysis and logical procedure to be "apologizing for Epson every inch of the way". I have absolutely no interest in that and it makes no sense to impute that I do. I am also recommending disciplinary action to the moderator because referring to another forum member as a "donkey" is unacceptable behaviour under any circumstances.

I AGREE!!!

Gary

[clic]

Just to be clear, I did not call anybody a donkey.

I referred to the fact that one person in particular here, systematically displays what amounts to stubbornness in face of a body of evidence, and that spending any more energy in trying to convince that person, would for me as frivolous as trying to teach a donkey how to bark.

There so called "skepticism" of the person in question here, amounts to be a consistent apologist, whether on purpose or not.  When that person does not even own the equipment in question while I and others do, and we are the persons who actually have a grievance here, and a serious one jeopardizing our businesses, the persistence of the said stubborn fellow, becomes quite difficult to take.


I was not trying to insult anyone, just making it clear that I and others have had enough with the so called "skepticism," which at this point is irrational.

[Mark D Segal]

I'll add to what I said by also bringing to your attention that calling some one an "apologist" for a corporation is also impugning that person's character and that too is completely unacceptable - in fact it is slanderous.

[clic]

Mark,


For someone who bills himself as the paradigm of logic, you do not seem to understand the subtleties or logic of language very well.  It would be slanderous to accuse you of being a covert apologist, in other words somebody who acts benevolent, but is in fact compensated for advocating in a certain manner.  And I have only accused you of being an apologist, a plain one, somebody who day in and day out, find all the possible excuses for one party while expressing irrational skepticism for the other, a fact that anybody can verify by combing through this 27 pages long thread.

In fact, apart from being illogical, borderline idiotic, it might be slanderous in this case of accusing me of slander.

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,


For someone who bills himself as the paradigm of logic, you do not seem to understand the subtleties or logic of language very well.  It would be slanderous to accuse you of being a covert apologist, in other words somebody who acts benevolent, but is in fact compensated for advocating in a certain manner.  And I have only accused you of being an apologist, a plain one, somebody who day in and day out, find all the possible excuses for one party while expressing irrational skepticism for the other, a fact that anybody can verify by combing through this 27 pages long thread.

In fact, apart from being illogical, borderline idiotic, it might be slanderous in this case of accusing me of slander.

Finita la commedia.

[michael]

This is gone far enough.

While I think the comment made was overly aggressive and inappropriate, it falls short of being a ban-able infraction.

I would suggest an apology and then let's let the matter drop.

[clic]

Michael,


Out of deference for your opinion, I will apologize for having used language that could be interpreted as insulting, and above all became a pretense for distraction from the substance of my original post.  I will submit as attenuating circumstances though, that as one of the few people whose business is indeed jeopardized by the premature failure of my 9900, which has a near 100% probability of being imputable to a defect in manufacturing or engineering, it becomes really aggravating to read some posts which are consistently, and beyond reason, advocating in the defense of the manufacturer in a way that is very insensitive to our pain.


So now, please bear my re posting some of my comments that this incident has distracted us from:


Personally I was not born with a prejudice for or against Epson, I just wish they would take responsibility for what is clearly a manufacturing of engineering defect, under warranty or out of warranty, period.  It is ludicrous to contemplate LLK drying inside the head, clogging and the like.  LLK is one of the most fluid inks in the lineup, one that hardly ever clogs (regular clogging) and it does not dry solid at air contact.  If by extraordinary it could have "solidified" my testing demonstrates that it would have been dissolved by the cleaners that I have put in the channel, and instead, while there was no ink left to create clogging, the head kept "clogging."  The only logical conclusion is that there is no clogging going on in this case.  On another hand most head failures on x900 are extra overwhelmingly on the LLK channel, and anybody with logic and a reasonable understanding would start to assume that the likelihood of an engineering or manufacturing issue here is then quite high, and certainly the first presumption.

The extended warranty is a solution for volume printers.  For others, it prices Epson well outside of the affordability range, let alone that the alternatives (Canon, HP) are already roughly 50% less costly before the extended warranty.

Epson should bite the bullet.  I have very (let me retype VERY) good reasons to suspect that they don't know how to technically resolve the problem, prevent those premature head failures to occur.  But since the users are not responsible for that, and since we are talking of a relatively small numbers of users, it would be feasible and the honorable thing to do, to rescue that relatively small amount of people, just like they did with James Haswell (page 25), and emerge ahead in terms of image.  

Don't you think?

[SacredEarth]

I am not a usual forum user or poster, but because my 9900 has an uncurable clog I have come to follow this thread daily. It does surprise me how people can become worked up over other peoples comments. Like it or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and is free to voice them!
With that aside, when I compare this situation to my own business, here is what I think Epson should do:
Let's say I get 1000 orders for large mounted and framed Fine-Art prints at a cost of $5000. Each. 10 of those clients call me because the mounting process I used, for whatever reason (humidity, dryness, they hung it in their bathroom...) the photograph began to bubble up from the mount. These 10 customers become dissatisfied because the photograph no longer looks as it did when they purchased it. I offered no warrenty, or extended warrenty when they purchased the photograph. So should I tell them too bad, here is the name of a framer who can fix it for $2500.-$3000., or should I offer to replace or fix them myself at no charge? Personally to keep a customer like this happy (a customer who also might refer some of their wealthy friends to purchase more of my work) I would offer to fix the issue. If I chose the other path, it only takes those 10 disgusted, unsatisfied customers to reach out to thousands of other potential customers and steer them away from purchasing my work and purchasing work from someone else. And, especially with a web forum like this and the way people communicate today bad business could spread very quickly. The cost for me to replace that photograph will be far less then the price I might pay to not fix it.
In the case of a corporate giant such as Epson in a very competitive market it seems to me that they would want to keep those printers printing so they can sell more ink! (isn't that where they
Make their highest profit margin anyways) something to think about....

[designpartners]

Michael,

  I have very (let me retype VERY) good reasons to suspect that they don't know how to technically resolve the problem, prevent those premature head failures to occur.  

Don't you think?

Hi Clic...

perhaps it would lend more credibility if you explained your VERY good reasons - or are they just what you have already mentioned? 

James

[DeanChriss]

I offered no warranty, or extended warranty when they purchased the photograph.

I'd do the same thing and replace their print. But if I did offer a free warranty period, and an extended warranty they could purchase (presumably priced to help defray some of my expected costs), it might be a different story. If someone comes in with a problem after the free warranty expires, who did not purchase any extended warranty, should I give that person the same service my other customers had to pay paid for? What would be the reaction of the customers who did buy the extended warranty if they find I'm giving those who didn't buy it the same service? If it's a couple days after the warranty expired then perhaps no one would care, but when does that end -- a week, a month, 6 months, or a year out of warranty? The whole thing quickly becomes a quagmire and I suspect I'd be better off following a set policy that's written down on a piece of paper that I give to everyone who buys a print. That way everyone knows what to expect up front, and they can even have the entire free warranty period to decide whether to buy the extended one.

From any large manufacturer's perspective it's all statistics. They all produce large numbers of printers, and they are complex devices. There is always some "infant mortality" as electronic parts "burn in" and there are always some manufacturing defects. I have no inside information regarding Epson, but it would be a huge problem if these issues affected more than a fraction of a percent of the units they produce. This sort of thing typically happens during the warranty period, but it's a statistical distribution and sometimes it takes longer. Also, it's normal for complicated systems to have a few common end of life failure modes, or ways in which the system typically fails, usually due to some specific "weakest link" component or subsystem that on average fails earlier than the rest. Subjectively speaking that usually that takes a long time, or "long enough", relative to our need for the device. Statistically some units will fail prematurely while most will last far longer.

With all that said, I didn't purchase an extended warranty for my printer and I'd have been as upset as anyone if it had a major problem after the warranty expired. The first thing I'd think is that I should have purchased the extended warranty. The next thing I'd think is that I probably shouldn't buy another one of these, but if I did I'd certainly buy the warranty next time. I virtually never buy extended warranties, but that's the same as placing a bet that you're not going to need it. As with all wagers, sometimes you lose.

I've been reading this thread regularly with great interest and wanted to share these thoughts. There's no intent to ruffle any feathers.

[Mark D Segal]

Excellent post Dean. I think from the macroscopic perspective this lays out the whole issue in a very rational and sensible manner, much as, also logically, the bigger picture doesn't really cure the pain felt by those who have been affected by major out-of-warranty issues.

[Eric Gulbransen]

I feel shy now.  I'm surrounded by more knowledge and talent than I'll ever possess.  I won't even mention experience. 

"But I did save 15% by switching to Geico!" 


Latest update on our Canadian head cleaning; I talked to Vladimir and he predicts the end of this month we will have the head back.  So our answer is looming...

Congratulations Clic.  I wish I was that good at anything.

[Alan Goldhammer]

For an L.F. Epson printer, a reasonable life expectancy is 6 to 10 years unless intensive usage, maybe more for really low volume, and the real life expectancy is typically actually determined by technological improvements available in newer machines than by actual deterioration.  That is the situation and what warrants Sacred Earth eloquent demonstration of what should be a no brainer for the manufacturer.

According to whom?  What is the criteria here? 

I have already demonstrated on this thread that the problem is not one of clogging, but rather one of engineering and/or manufacturing.  Beyond that, I enjoy a rather high consideration in the photo industry.  Apart from my work having been recognized by Leica among others, a full feature documentary film is currently hitting the festival circuit about my work.  You pretty much can take to the bank that the director of that movie would not have committed his resources if he did not think that I had quite a bit of credibility.  As a matter of fact, a good part of the film is about affirming what apparently is an off the charts artistic integrity.  

The fact that you are a more than capable photographer does not make you an engineering expert (I couldn't find any reference to your educational background that would make you knowledgeable about anything more than a bunch of Internet anecdotes).

In order to erase any doubt, I should also be able to post early next week, evidence of a new recognition from the Rolls Royce of photography (leica would be Bentley).

Congratulation but see the above comment.  I have also received a number of awards during my working career but none of them relate to making value judgments about engineering issues (though my late father was a very capable civil engineer so maybe part of my genetic makeup predisposes me in that direction).

It is quite obvious that the credibility deficit here, is in the camp on the other side of this story, the one who thinks that it can erect a wall of silence and pretend to be in denial.  So really, for now,  please just take my word for it, as I am not the one with a credibility issue here.  We shall see later if there is a need for going public about the nuclear grade, wilkipedia type of information, that I am sorry to be in control of.  It should suffice to say that the world does not like cheaters, and the mood is not especially tolerant of corruption lately.  The recent Greg Smith/Goldman Sachs story should inspire better behaviors here.

Rather strange analogy here.  Epson offer a solid one year warranty on their professional printers and an additional 2 year extension for those willing to purchase it.  I can tell you point blank that if my livelihood depended on a wide format printer regardless of the manufacturer, I would get the extended warranty.  If you don't like Epson, there are two other manufacturers out there that would be pleased to sell you a printer (I've had two medium format Epson K3 inkset photo printers that never had a single clog in 3 1/2 years of moderate use).

[Randy Carone]

Alan,

I knew if I waited a while someone more eloquent than I would put my thoughts into words. Thank you.

I've said this before on threads and it bears repeating. We have sold thousands of Epson printers from 17" to 63" and ALWAYS advise our customers to call us first when they have a problem. We get very few calls with ink delivery issues on Epson printers. Our sample is quite large - wink, wink, nudge, nudge - and if I were Epson I'd be happy with the track record. This does NOT mean they should put their feet up on the desk and light a cigar and I don't believe that is their attitude. I'll bet Epson is constantly striving to make better printers, which seems obvious, as their products have gotten better with each new generation. Oh, am I straying into 'apologist' territory? No problem.