[csydas]

I'm just being cynical here but there is probably some element of truth that there's just nothing to disrupt -- printer manufacturers had the billionaire disruption playbook mastered before billionaire disruption was really a thing.

I'll acknowledge that disruption can sometimes bring consumer benefits, but inevitably it's short lived benefits or benefits that are just to hook you and then gouge you later. Printers have been good for decades, and only the limitations built in by manufacturers make them bad†. I think even well into 2010 a friend of mine was using an old Apple laser printer and it was pretty darn reliable for getting text out fast.

Think about all the ways manufacturers have tried/still are monetizing printers:

- DRM on cartridges - Forcing all cartridges to have ink even to print in black and white - Per-page subscription models that deliver ink and cap monthly prints

I'm sure I've missed some of the other really sick ways, but I'm not really sure there are that many ways that could've been missed.

Combine that with the fact that increasingly there are more online forms and digital signing has some traction, it's not really that lucrative I think to get into. I don't know the full situation in the US, but when I was last there, the common copy shops were either Kinkos or (sometimes) USPS/UPS/FedEx stores that offered printing services. Outside of the US, copy/print centers are extremely common and fairly cheap/convenient; checking maps, there are 5 within walking distance ( > 500 meters) from my apartment and they're convenient services (+ cheap).

All in all, what is the future to disrupt with consumer printers? The cost of ownership exceeds the number of times _I as an individual_ need to print every year/the cost of just using a copy center. For those with above-average printing needs, a professional printer setup is a better investment than a consumer printer.

[mbarbar]

>Printers have been good for decades, and only the limitations built in by manufacturers make them bad

This is what I was referring to, maybe using the word disrupt incorrectly. I meant to ask, is there anything stopping someone, like a bored billionaire, from coming in with a consumer friendly line of consumer printers, and capturing the market completely? In my mind, and I could be wrong, printers aren't sophisticated in a way that make it near impossible for new players (like high end semiconductor manufacturing, for example -- like you say, printers have been good for decades) and the software doesn't seem too out there either.

In my mind, I envision something like what Raptor Computing [1] is trying to do for workstations and servers, but unlike Raptor, 1) the problem appears to be far simpler, and 2) the market for printers is larger and to consumers appears more directly beneficial. It's far harder to sell someone on (expensive!) hardware freedom than that the official ink refill isn't a complete rort, the ink is environmentally friendly, no annoying DRM, etc.

Of course, that market is shrinking. I think the anecdotes you and others point out are not uncommon, and your last point about a professional setup makes sense, but then... who's buying these things? The office supply stores near me still dedicate a decent chunk of space to printers and ink cartridges.

[1] https://www.raptorcs.com/

[lordnacho]

I'd imagine such a venture would be mostly marketing. No real innovation, which HN will point out, but lots of hype and your friend who doesn't know tech will buy one and tell you about the great new innovations and how they're disrupting the old monopoly.

[mbarbar]

Right, that's what I mean (I had understood the term disruption incorrectly). Is there a reason this is not a lucrative venture, to produce something clean and user-friendly that captures the goodwill of customers and force competitors to play nice?

I'd imagine a business would be over the moon with the scenario you're describing.

[lordnacho]

My guess is mainly that it's not sexy, it's a fairly niche thing. VC will look at it and say "what's your moat" until someone bites and decides that you do have a moat, at which point you'll be like Transfer Wise (now called Wise), basically an old product pretending to be innovative.

I bet it could be done, just needs someone to take a punt.

One could imagine a load of such niches. Come in, act like you're doing something new, get investment, capture market.

[DarylZero]

If that were more profitable that's how the market would already be?

I guess most people just believe the story about the chips being used to make sure there's enough ink. If they're even aware of the chips.

[joepie91_]

I think anyone who has ever tried to get any process optimizations pushed through in a large company, knows that the idea of "the market will automatically do whatever is most profitable" is mostly an ideologically convenient pipedream.

[DarylZero]

Absolutely. But I think that in the specific case -- if every firm in an entire market is abusing customers -- it implies that the abuse is profitable, and the market success shows consumers are abuse-tolerant. Really it's showing something about the demand side of the market.

To talk about ideological pipedreams the "perfect information" consumer is the other side of it.

[csydas]

Ah, that's why I led of with me being cynical because I am; I absolutely get what you meant and traditionally that is what disruption would be; a new player entering the market and disrupting the incumbents due to the player innovating where the incumbents stalled out trying to maintain their position.

My coy interpretation/version is that frequently this ends up less about innovation and more about shifting consumer bases by simply making a flashy product with a superficially cheaper barrier of entry while introducing other means of having recurring revenue from consumers.

My take is just that with physical office stores in particular, printers are just the sort of thing that people who go to physical stores to buy electronics still want, but I would wager it's dwindling, and a quick search seems to suggest this also [0], while another [1] suggests it's a slow but steadily growing market (note: this report mentions a bit on 3D printers, but the full report is behind paywall so it's not clear if that factors in at all)

I've never heard of Raptor Computing until you mentioned it, and it looks like they have a niche with Power9 processors and that they allow you to get basically kits or prebuilts? I kind of feel that's the "unique" niche that differentiates Raptor Computing from someone who might try to disrupt printers, in that Power9 does have a uniqueness to it, where as the technology for most consumer printers is just the same, it's just the vendor lockdown that differs.

You might get a dedicated following of privacy conscious persons who would like a completely unlocked and non-aggressive home printer that just prints, but I just find myself wondering if the cost of ownership is _really_ worth it for the right to own a printer. As another poster commented on the privacy concerns of copy shops, I'm starting to wonder if maybe that's the next direction that can be done to consolidate the options to professional printing units that make a proper effort to secure the process of printing end to end and make ubiquitous "utility-like" printers that can be placed anywhere to offer scanning/printing/signing services.

But I don't think the answer for this is home-office use anymore, and I don't see it as a market that too many are interested in trying to upset, but instead just making sure everyone gets their cut as the market transitions.

[0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/274447/hewlett-packards-... (Note: I have no idea how valid this is so take it with that frame of reference)

[1] - https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5323193/printer-g...

[Ansil849]

> the common copy shops were either Kinkos or (sometimes) USPS/UPS/FedEx stores that offered printing services. Outside of the US, copy/print centers are extremely common and fairly cheap/convenient; checking maps, there are 5 within walking distance ( > 500 meters) from my apartment and they're convenient services (+ cheap).

The problem is that copy shops are hotbeds of identity theft. What kind of documents do people need to print out nowadays that they would bother going to a copy shop for if they don't have a home printer? For important financial, bureaucratic, etc. ones. This then leaves the risk that the low-paid staff now has a copy of your sensitive files, and if the printer caches jobs, anyone else accessing it may too.

[csydas]

Mmm, I get your point but with government orgs, I see it two ways:

1. Form online you fill out 2. They only accept hand-filled (e.g., with pen) documents

So I'm not really sure which forms you're thinking of; not doubting they exist, but there just doesn't seem to be a lot of crossover on forms that are required to be printed. The only thing I can really think of that is sensitive would be just identity documents, but I think a copy shop scanner caching the job is the _least_ of the worries (the offices/businesses that require such documents really do not have secure practices at all...)

I get what you're saying I just don't think the threat factor is that big compared to the rest of the chain of custody threats with private documents, regardless of where it's printed.

[FabHK]

> - Forcing all cartridges to have ink even to print in black and white

In some cases, forcing all cartridges to have ink even to scan documents, IIRC.

[FireBeyond]

> I'm sure I've missed some of the other really sick ways, but I'm not really sure there are that many ways that could've been missed.

The really sick way is (I forget which manufacturer, but believe HP) that refuses to let you _SCAN_ if the printer is out of ink.