[vel0city]

> What about a built-in cutting, binding or folding mechanism?

You can get that on some really high end office copiers. It's mechanically complex though and takes up space.

> What about a built-in QR like binary converter for paper backing up of crucial files and some way to feed them back in through ADF scanning?

You can get massively more information density and reliability from optical media.

> What about a built-in filter to printer feature of email so things like orders get auto printed?

Already a feature of some printers

> A flatbed that can do UV and IR scanning

I can't imagine a consumer use for this, care to expand how this would be useful?

> How about an API with MQTT so you can integrate it in a automated production pipeline much easier.

There are already highly standardized printing APIs out there for network printers. If all you're really wanting is to put out text you can often just telnet to the raw port and start sending data.

[kristopolous]

Yes, you can scuttle and quash whatever. Almost every massively successful tech product can be given the same treatment from the IBM PC to Microsoft Windows to the iPhone.

And there were plenty of people who clicked their heels saying "there's nothing new here!" when the iPod, YouTube or Instagram came out. I used to be among them.

You can also "but wait, there's more" those products and go back and forth and say how different and unique they are. Nest, Ring, Roku, Kindle, Uber, Airbnb...

It's a game. You either take a risk and make a splash with a consumer-friendly, consumer-form factor, consumer-priced version of something or you don't.

There's no modern printer people love and nothing in one they can get at say, Best Buy, they couldn't get 20 years ago. They're all frustrating plastic things sitting in the corner.

Making innovative, actually great printers people are excited about is a product opportunity. Brother is close, but they're the Zune. Nobody's iPhoned it.

[vel0city]

Are you arguing that if Brother would just add MQTT support (whatever that would look like) or IR scanning (once again, what's the consumer use for this?) they'd have the next iPhone on their hands?

HP has had the "print to email" function you ask for since at least the late 00's (that's when I first saw it). They discontinued it on their newer models because nobody cared. Brother and Epson have this functionality as well. I imagine most consumer printer platforms support such a feature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_ePrint

https://help.brother-usa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/158082/...

https://www.epsonconnect.com/guide/en/html/uses_1.htm

And you can add binding support to your printer if you want to. Here's a link to a binder add-on. Think its this big because they just felt like making it big, or because its mechanically a somewhat complex process to fold and bind stacks of paper?

https://www.xerox.com/en-us/digital-printing/feeders-print-f...

If you do reply to this comment, I'd genuinely like to know what you'd do with a flatbed or ADF scanner that can scan IR and UV.

About the only feature I'd imagine a decent chunk of consumers would like that doesn't already exist would be for it to also automatically trim/cut things for you, à la Cricut. But while a Cricut looks a lot like a printer, it functions radically differently. It is made to move the cutting board back and forth and requires the material to be cut to be affixed to the board. There's a lot more setup involved than just pulling a page from the tray and pushing it through with rollers. Adding a cutting edge to a normal printer path would probably end up with lots of paper jams and debris stuck in the printer. A Cricut is way more like a 3D printer than a laser/inkjet printer.

[kristopolous]

I'm arguing it's a game and one I don't play anymore.

Consumers aren't infinitely rational homo-economicus logicians and discussing products as if they are is irrelevant.

People might buy into the UV and IR just because they could. It doesn't have to be practical and they don't have to ever use it.

The modern iPhone: No removable battery, too big for pockets, cash cow of a multi trillion dollar company, lacks a headphone port, needs a proprietary charger... Doesn't matter. Products have features. Features aren't a product.

Successful products feel like their own thing that also services the need they're intended for. Xerox used to occupy that space for printing. It's mostly vacant now.

[vel0city]

> They're all frustrating plastic things sitting in the corner.

> There's plenty of innovation left.

> Lists a bunch of features that either already exist or have no practical application

You're telling me there's lots of meat on the bone for innovation but then I'm not actually seeing anything that hasn't already existed that would make them not the same frustrating plastic things in the corner they are today.

Maybe it's just a marketing thing? I imagine most people wouldn't know a lot of the printers at Best Buy support print by email, clearly you didn't already know that was a thing. Stuff like IPP and AirPrint makes printing to a random network printer stupid simple without needing additional apps or whatever, but it seems every time I print from my phone it blows peoples' minds that I didn't have to plug in a cable. Other than HP consumer printers, generally printers I've used in at least Windows and Linux just work. Plug them into the network or add them to the WiFi, and then every computer in the home can see it and it works without needing to install 500MB of drivers and additional software.

Maybe not every product market has obvious innovations that are useful to consumers. Maybe sometimes things get mature. I'm not seeing a lot of innovation in forks or whatever. Generally, printers these days are pretty reliable. You can get them pretty dang tiny if you want. They can have pretty insane resolution for most consumer needs. They can talk wirelessly with highly standardized APIs that pretty much any computer or phone or tablet can talk.

[kristopolous]

It's a product thing. You're a technical user that doesn't see the value in a non-technical well packaged, properly balanced, autodidactic product.

There's countless successful things you've probably looked at and scratched your head thinking "that's been around a long time".

I don't know if I can explain this distinction anymore. Think about something you don't really care about. Let's take socks. There's these technical features, weave pattern, stitch strength, balance of the polymers of the materials, etc I've never thought about. Instead, I find some I think I'll like and I wear them. There's zero intellectualization that goes into the process. I was probably swayed by more colorful packaging.

You gotta meet people at that level for mass appeal because most people don't care about what you care about. They're not stupid, they just don't share your passions.

Anyways I've got other things to do.

[vel0city]

> Let's take socks.

Lets do talk socks then. What's up with socks? There's plenty of innovation left. Why am I limited to the same kind of things people have been wearing for hundreds of years? We could have socks that never need to be washed. We could have socks that change colors dynamically. Why not have socks that put themselves on my feet? Socks without toes, socks without heels. Socks as an industry could be blown open to innovation but I guess we can't have nice things. Why isn't there an iPhone of socks instead of all this generic nonsense?

Making innovative, actually great socks people are excited about is a product opportunity. Hanes is close, but they're the Zune. Nobody's iPhoned it.

This is what I'm hearing with your printer comments.