Inkjet printing requires orders of magnitude more engineering expertise, materials science, industry experience and financial resources than most people imagine. That is the reason, open inkjet printers don't exist despite having been consumer products with the same drawbacks for more than forty years.
That is why this is a pre-crowdfund landing page without a demonstrating a working prototype. I would like to be wrong, but I expect you to be waiting a long time.
An inkjet printer is not a collection of off the shelf parts. It is a machine that operates at the edge of chemistry, fluid dynamics, and electro-mechanical design...you have to place tiny tiny drops of liquid ink on commodity wood pulp with precision under arbitrary environmental conditions, get that ink to dry on the wood pulp, but not in tank or nozzel, while producing acceptable color, durability, and ease of use.
Also lawyers...there are patents.
99% of this is the printhead and the ink formulation. Assuming you use generic off the shelf solutions for those two components you’re set. All the printer companies do their lock in at the firmware and software layer.
Yeah, I found that original comment to be a bit nonsensical. It would be like arguing you can't build your own PC because the lithography tech needed to make modern ICs is really complicated. I wasn't planning a laying out my own chip, and these guys aren't planning on building their own printhead from scratch.
yes, I was about to build another gaming PC, and then I remembered the ASML machine costs 20 bajillion. Will wait for the ASML machine to come down in price, to around couple of grand.
You don't need ASML machines. There are labs all over that can build chips. I know of one near me that has a license to make the Pentium I chip (or possibly a similar chip - the exact chips classified, but I know can make the electronics for the Tomahawk missile thus ensuring that in case of war there is supply chain redundancy) - they need to get $30,000 each for them just to break even on labor costs since they don't have mass production.
Which is to say you can make your gaming PC at home as a one-off if you want. Though personally I won't get near the toxic chemicals used.
There's also the long term strategy where if they can sell enough printers, they may at some point in the future do get the budget needed to make their own print head. It's not like printers were invented in 2026.
At the 2400 DPI that an HP printer can handle, the printer needs to place the head at 1/100 mm precision three times for every single dot on the page, and not smear them, despite not knowing what thickness or weight or finish the paper has. That is not trivial.
Yes. There's the obvious difference of "it's a working printer" and desirable and useful product. You don't need to be state of the art to be in the first category was my thought.
Which is why its more surprising this was first announced last year and there's no Proof of Concept demo yet?
But really, I've given up on ink jet printers, and have gone the cheap B&W laser route for anything I need to print at home (In the past year, 2 times, a backup ticket and some paperwork that needed a real signature sent back).
But when I had them, the thing that went bad 99.999% of the time was the cartridges or a clogged nozzle on the head. So the advantage here, on the repairability side not DRM, is the rails and motors?
Also that cutter is going to be a pain, having worked on Lightjet printers, that cutter was nearly all field service issues until the FEs started leaving the "laser" key so lab managers could reset the blade themselves.
An open source all-in-one-printer would be a great device to have. For eg I would love to have the scanner include a camera. So I can get “instant scans” most of the time, and a higher res scan when needed. Maybe the camera could also notice when the person making copies or scans forgot their original and ping them?
On the technology side, I'm somewhat hopeful because it looks like they're using off-the-shelf HP ink cartridges for this. HP cartridges embed the printhead into the cartridge itself, and that printhead is arguably the most complicated part of the entire device. Outsource the printhead, and you're just designing a plotter with a PCL interface.
I agree that the bigger challenge is going to be patents.
It also wouldn't surprise me to see HP add DRM to cartridges to authenticate the printer itself if this catches on. (Possibly requiring a printer driver/firmware update.)
I don’t see why HP would want to do that. They have huge margins on ink, right? I’m sure the increase in cartridge sales would offset lost subscription revenue from useless cloud services, if only because the people who are gonna use an open source printer would never pay for that anyway.
Yea, but then the print head clogs up after the second time you refill it and you buy another expensive print head + ink from HP.
Frankly, I think 99% of the reason they started integrating the print head with the cartridge was to avoid all the problems you so frequently see on printers that don’t use disposable heads.
This is exactly why I don’t mess with ink tank printers.
Perhaps I am wrong and someone else can explain how ink tank printers resolve these types of issues.
But as someone who likes good quality prints with no fuss, I find that traditional inkjet is worth the extra cost for my needs/wants.
I find the complaints around inkjet printers to be way too harsh.
They usually center around things like:
- The printers not working well and breaking. Yeah, if you buy the cheapest one possible, that is the experience you’ll get, and that’s what most people do. Buy a printer intended for small business use in the $200-300 range and you’ll have a better time.
- The evils of HP Instant Ink. Completely optional and easy to avoid.
- Ink is wildly overpriced and expensive. Technically true, but the alternative is consumer printer companies going out of business and I don’t think that’s hyperbole. If you’re price sensitive you get a laser printer and call it a day; no sense complaining that inkjet users prefer to pay extra to get the advantages of that tech.
Maybe they should have purchased a design from Canon or someone that isn't really in this market anymore. It seems like not only are they locked into a specific older technology generation (which could be ok idk) but they also risk HP just discontinuing that cartridge. It seems like the printers for this cartridge were released around late 2017 so they could deprecate earlier than they normally do. Seems like they provide 10-20 years typically. At the same time , maybe this is just meant for a small user base of nerds and maybe HP wont care.
Canon is still in the market, they just supply parts and license IP to the printer manufacturers like HP. They make some high value stuff to sell to the OEMs but I don’t think they can make a whole print head anymore.
I did some research on weird inkjet printers a few years ago. We wanted to do stuff like print white[1] graphics continuously onto rolls of black heat shrink tubing.
One thing I discovered was that there's whole Chinese industries supplying this stuff in the forms of industrial printers and the application-specific cartridges they consume. And they all had one thing in common: They were based around the functionality of an HP printer cartridge. That was the universal interface.
This leads me to believe that a print cartridge format can be supported by the marketplace for a very long time whether HP likes it or not.
[1]: Printing with white is neat. It sounds impossible and there are those who say it can't happen, but it exists. It's just problematic. The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over.
Are you referring to the numerous Chinese UV printers?
>The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse in open air. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over
Decades ago I helped manage a local's school IT systems and we had these Epson C84 printers that used a very photo grade ink. The printheads would clog after a year of teachers printing like 1 document in that year. During that time it seemed like regular purging of ink regardless of print or not was what kept the printheads going. Strategies used by third party repair firms included submerging the head in a cleaner to dissolve the ink on the outside, connecting pipes with the same fluid to the inputs of the top to the printhead and then finally pulling pressure to try and dislodge the material through the head. Due to the non removable design of the Epson print heads, my attempts at trying this would destroy many printheads. I'd like to think this would be a solved problem in 2026. In your case why not run a purge liquid the printhead after each print? The printhead could then be primed with fresh ink each time.
We were using fixed-head printers that we found at the bottom of a deep rabbit hole. The work moved through the machine while the printy-bits remained stationary. We were doing this with HP-style monochromatic carts that came loaded with high-solids "ink" (closer to paint, really) that used opaque white pigment.
Unlike Epson's ecosystem, HP carts most-commonly come as assemblies, with a new print head included in the same disposable cartridge as the ink is. The only connection between the carts and the rest of the printer is electrical; there's no plumbing or functional fluids that are external to the carts.
This self-contained nature means that when ink runs out or heads gets clogged, replacement of everything involved with fluids is fast and easy. Production can continue immediately.
It's not problematic at all...other than being expensive. :)
> I agree that the bigger challenge is going to be patents.
Surely most/all of the patents around the actual inkjet printing function have expired though, right? I had inkjet printers in the mid 00s and if anything I feel like your average inkjet is worse these days.
In medicine, it's a regular trick to find some new patentable formulation or tweak to switch to manufacturing shortly before the original patents expire, so that you continue to have a patent-protected product.
It would not surprise me if something similar was happening here: HP's current cartridges have at least one piece that is under active patent protection and they don't manufacture any designs that have no patent protection. I don't know enough to state that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the print heads are a very specialized silicon chip with internal microfluidic passages, microscopic heaters, etc. Who else would even make them? The kind of thing you would need millions of dollars to reverse engineer and replicate just to enter the lucrative market of... making inkjet cartridges.
I would be shocked to discover that there are counterfeit print heads out there the same way there are counterfeit STM32 microcontrollers.
Unless the patents have something to do with the shape of the cartridge or they somehow have a patent on "technique to fill printer cartridge with ink" which would not be so surprising.
The crowdsource page says it has refillable ink tanks rather than cartridges. Unless they are modifying HP cartridges, which is probably not smart from a legal standpoint.
Why would they bother? They make all their money on the ink cartridges. If this drives more cartridge sales it’s a win/win for them. They generally don’t make much, if anything, on consumer ink jet printers themselves
It’s negligible revenue and carries some risk. Say the printer works well, and these enthusiasts drive a couple of thousand more cartridge sales. And that encourages someone to develop an alternative cartridge, which is mechanically and electrically compatible with HP’s.
It just seems easier to fire off a cease and desist than to take a risk of other people messing around with your ecosystem.
This printer will use refilled cartridges. It could even use cartridges that have been sent out under the 'instant ink' subscription scheme. People in that scheme usually end up with a drawer full of spare cartridges, as they send them to you like they are worth the pennies that they actually cost.
Impression v. Lexmark is directly relevant to the patent situation here; in a case involving reprogrammed ink cartridges, the Supreme Court held that patent rights are exhausted by first sale doctrine; that is, if you sell me something patented, you can't sue me for patent infringement, even if I do something later that makes you upset.
It's also been widely held that ink cartridge compatibility tools/hacks are allowed under DMCA.
However, it does seem likely that there's probably some shenanigan involved in the area - one example I could think of would be if HP have patented the way the ink cartridges are retained in the printer, for example, that would have to be carefully audited. And there will be license and trade secrets issues with the use of the cartridges, although if they were reverse engineered cleanly and the printer doesn't come with cartridges, those are probably pretty easily side-stepped.
A sea of patents designed to inhibit competition & promote rent extraction, and we are running around in circles chasing our tails wondering how we can compete with China.
China is changing stance on patents... Thier companies are now filing for patents at great speed, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start mass suing American companies for violations.
I could totally imagine a rapid upheaval of the patent system as soon as we see it being used against us.
These cartridges were first released in 2004, and there don't seem to have been any major design changes since then. The electrical and digital interface for printing has remained the same, as well as the mechanics. There is a new DRM system using another chip, but that is one-way - ie. It prevents an original printer from using the cartridge, but doesn't prevent use of an original cartridge by a third party printer.
Any patents are probably expired or very close to it.
The cartridge heads have a super curious digital protocol - the cartridge electronics have no power supply. There is no power rail internally either.
Instead they use the fact mosfet gates have capacitance, and can therefore store 1 'bit' of information. Through a network of hundreds of MOSFETs, the right bits can be put on all the nozzle gates as needed, and then a 'fire' pulse is sent which for around a microsecond turns on a tiny heater (or not, depending on mosfet gate state). The heater boils some ink, making a pressure wave which travels down a pipe and makes a drop of ink fly out towards the paper.
I suspect this decision is because the custom silicon process needed to manufacture these nozzles is cheaper if they only have n type MOSFETs - and without p type MOSFETs you can't make a typical push pull logic gate.
The nozzles themselves are quite a lot of silicon - perhaps 100mm^2, with deep etched holes, and are effectively disposable, so I assume huge efforts have been taken to reduce costs - including this curious electrical design.
The protocol also is hugely irregular, which I suspect might be to avoid any wires on the chip needing to cross eachother.
Compatible cartridges
HP 63 and HP 63 XL (US)
HP 302 and HP 302 XL (Europe)
HP 803 and HP 803 XL (Asia)
So they just use HP inkjet technology. That makes it less open-source, but even "open source" parts are going to be under non-commercial license (CC BY-NC-SA) anyway.
Is there a Linux server run on fully open source hardware (what would that mean btw?)? Should we stop using "open source" because almost all computers are not fully open source?
Quite a lot of open source hardware is licensed under the BY-SA Creative Commons license which is an actual open source license. E.g. the Arduinos and things like the Milkymist One which can actually run linux.
What are you even trying to say? The fact that this is hardware isn't what makes it non-open source, there's plenty of open source hardware out there. The thing that makes it not-open-source is that the license is non-commercial.
If you can't legally use the product, the fact that the source is available is meaningless. CC-NC is a source available license, not an open source license.
Remanufactured cartridges for these printers are available. They profit from the first use of the cartridge, but make nothing out of the refilled ones (I've been using them for some time now).
You still pay for it to the company that has decades of hostile practices towards their clients. Their mechanisms are so bad that they even disable valid original cartridges sometimes, good luck with getting that refunded.
But maybe I'm emotional, as that company has been taking premium for a broken experience of so many people I know. I didn't expect such project going for their equipment.
I have all Brother printers too, they seem to be the only brand that's not actively trying to screw their customers. My B&W laser at home is on its second drum and still soldiering on, we got an A4 colour laser multifunction for work which does double sided document scanning and printing and it was... I think $380 or something, five years ago. Would buy again. I don't really need colour but it's nice.
I'd have to buy a printer tho. The one I have has done its job for a decade and I think I've bought a grand total of one offbrand toner cartridge in that time.
None, in the months (sometimes years) it spends switched off (off, not standby) between print jobs. It's a quarter of a century old and I can still get replacement cartridges when I need them.
Except when you need to ocassionally print/copy in color, in which case inkjets are more economical.
Even if you can afford a color laser, the problem is a color MFP (ie including a scanner) occupies a lot more space compared to a equivalent inkjet, and for some people this could be a deal breaker.
Color laser printers (MFPs with ADFs to be exact) aren't exactly cheap. Last I checked they were 2-3x more expensive than equivalent inkjets, and occupied a lot of space too.
My Brother inkjet with an ADF is smaller than a microwave and super cheap. Not something you'd ever see in a typical office. If I could buy a color laser printer with similar features, dimensions and price, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
I noticed that previous post is from a couple of months ago, and it looks like about a week ago they posted a project update and they claim for their current prototype: "We are successfully printing in both black and full color." https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer/updates/...
Of course I have no way of verifying either way. Still I do think the project looks quite interesting, I'm in the market for a printer and this is certainly the most interesting one I've seen in a while.
I have enormous respect for dot matrix printers. They're easy to repair and service, the tech is relatively simple, it's cheap, it's parts are cheap, its supplies are cheap. It's way more sustainable than any other printer: both the printer itself in its manufacturing and the ribbons themselves. The waste they produce is also much less polluting than any other printer.
They also kind of suck. I'm not one for "the latest and greatest", but their output quality is atrocious compared to modern printers, they're loud AF, and I'm guessing it may have existed but I never saw a dot matrix that didn't have the perforated edge for feeding.
Dot Matrix are still used in outdoor / high humidity environments in USA.
A lot of car shops with regular 100% humidity conditions will swear by dot matrix + tractor for feeding paper + printing. Plus, the carbon copy forms are guaranteed to be exact carbon copies which also leads to legal guarantees about copies of paper being provably exactly the same in the court of law.
Pen plotters could accept sheets of A4 and very precisely position them since at least the 80s. I'm surprised that dot-matrix printers didn't adopt similar technologies sooner, though it could be because by the mid-80s dot-matrix printers were the budget option, fanfold paper with the tractor strips was still abundant, and it was much easier to just stick with the cheaply manufacturable technologies rather than take the risk of innovation with a product that wouldn't sell upmarket anyway.
Were A4 plotters that much of a thing? I'd thought plotters were usually larger format (A0-A2 sort of size) for engineering drawings etc. Also iirc they were insanely expensive compared with your standard microcomputer dot-matrix printer.
The most popular pen plotter, and sort of the "holy grail" among hobbyists for this sort of thing, is the HP-7475A, a desktop model which could accept A4 or A3 sized paper (or US A or B size). It cost $1895 upon release in 1984, so yeah, pretty expensive when compared to the $650 an Epson MX-80 (best known dot matrix printer) cost. But there was so much more to the plotter than its paper-feed technology; it was much more a precision instrument in a variety of ways.
There was no reason to sell a dot matrix printer that wasn't compatible with tractor feed. Especially when some of the biggest uses of those printers required that stock. Doesn't mean they required tractor feed paper to operate.
A Matrix printer is essentially a typewriter with extra steps and typewriters had been eating any paper for .. a century before?
Are you thinking of Daisy wheel? Dot matrix uses a set of pins arranged in a matrix that they ram forward to press the ribbon against the paper. Daisy wheel uses a raised character glyph and slams it forward into the ribbon. Every typewriter I've used has full glyphs.
Try to find an typical consumer inkjet printer on AliExpress, you won't find any, or if you do, it will be someone reselling the usual brands like HP or Canon. You will find label printers, industrial printers, 3D printers, thermal printers, and all sorts of weird stuff, but none of them able to put ink on a stack of A4 paper.
If the Chinese, who are known for being able to make knockoffs of everything are not able to make inkjet printers, this should tell you how hard it is.
It addition to the print head, reliable paper transport is also really hard. That problem is often sidestepped by using a paper roll or by printing one sheet at a time, as it is the case for the Openprinter.
A more likely explanation has to do with the economics of ink jet printers. The ink sales are so profitable that HP and other manufacturers subsidize their printers. This leads to prices at or near cost.
Since Ali express vendors can't count on follow on ink sales, they can't compete on price. And competing on price is Ali express's reason for existence.
So, ink jet printer are harder to find on Ali express. At least, low end consumer focused ink jet printers.
Laser printers, which aren't subsidized are common
Several Chinese companies have their own domestic laser printers, claiming of in-house components and development (Cumtenn, ZoneWin), and one company does inkjet printers in addition to lasers (Deli Printer).
ZoneWin, a laser printer company, made a clone of both HP LaserJet 1020 and LaserJet M1005, which reuse most of the original/compatible parts (Q2612A cartridge). They claim it's 100% domestic parts only.
The fact the campaign is run on crowdsupply makes me a lot more hopeful it'll get to market vs a site like kickstarter. Crowdsupply requires a working prototype before launching and they provide all the expertise to actually get projects to market, off the top of my head I don't believe any crowdsupply project has failed to deliver.
Lol then 3D printing must be space technology that only the most advanced materials labs in the world can achieve, yeah inkjet is not simple, but it’s also not magic,
The issue is mainly the nozzle. Ironically 3D printers are a lot easier there, since you just need to melt a thick wire, and not worry about microscopically small droplets.
I certainly don't have deep knowledge in this area but my understanding is that the cartridge is basically a cavity with a small hole at the bottom and a piezo electric element at the top to sputter liquid down. The tolerances are tight but considering how advanced manufacturing is, I would imagine someone competent could design and prototype it with the tools and manufacturing ecosystem that's available now.
There's at least one project that has tried to design an actual DIY/open-source inkjet printer [0], along with inkjet print heads [1].
The ink most likely need some special sauce? But I imagine there's many organizations that can specialize in making the ink so that it can be treated close to a commodity. If not, maybe this can also be engineered?
This printer uses HP 502 cartridges. Readily available, but don't expect to save on ink costs compared to a regular HP printer.
They do claim that this printer will print in black when the colour cartridge is empty, which they imply is not possible with common printers. The only time I ever encountered that I simply removed the colour cartridge and the printer was happy to print in black.
The single hardest part is the print head. If you can reuse an existing one, and you can, then you're most of the way there.
The paper path itself is mechanically involved, but not to an impossible degree - it's hard to make it work, but it's not MEMS magic, it's manufacturable in the same way advanced 3D printers are manufacturable.
Makes sense, presumably if the project is well enough supported then they can move on to cartridge/head production, or modify to use whatever heads are available.
Out of ignorance, I wonder how IPR will work with interoperability rights. Patent rights seem like they might not be exhausted when you buy a spare part to use in third-party device, vs when you buy a spare part for an OEM device.
I'm guessing all the tech here has aged out of patent protection though?
Generic inkjet cartridges (including the nozzles) and ink are readily available. The head movement and is easier then a 3d printer, the will be some learning's for the paper handling but seems very achievable to me.
interesting that on the front page at this time is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48757900 "The Age of Personalized Hardware Is Coming", which, it seems that it may be, but not for inkjet printers?
yes but the parent commenter asserts that an open source inkjet will never happen which I take to mean that a customized inkjet is not happening either.
Well, the same thinking was going on when Mr. Daniel Gelbart [0] started Creo. In all the videos I've seen from Gelbart, he always repeats that many things are being done wrong, he has some answers, but people keep copying bad design.
Saying "no way you will succeed, is way too difficult! look how hard is it for HP" is absolute non-sense.
Also, if the whole printing head is from HP, and they sell it for the price they do, I do not think is the most advanced science the mankind achieved. I would have such doubt maybe if somebody wants to compete with ASML. But Inkjet? really? such an old technology with all patents expired?
Is laser printing more feasible? I've had the same Brother black & white laser for almost a decade and it's more than adequate for everything I do. If I ever need color, I send it off to a service that has much nicer printers than most people would ever want in their homes.
I looked into hackable printers 10+ years ago when building a demonstrator prototype of a bioproduced ink dye. The key challenge challenges is that they are an integrated system between mechanical, electronical, and chemical (ink formulation, surface chemistry) domains.
I would believe most relevant patents are now expired and that we should be able to build a printer that at least gives sufficient quality prints. Given sufficient motivation and time investment, that is.
This is interesting, but it seems to be a crowdfunding campaign only. I wish them the best of luck (the cause is worthy for sure), but buyer beware at this point.
(I myself don't 2D print enough that an ink based printer makes sense for me. Ink tends to dry, so for me a laser printer that can sit for months at a time makes more sense. I use the scanner as well as my 3D printer far more often.)
I wonder how they will handle the nonsense around yellow tracking dots[1] etc. Hopefully that doesn't become a problem.
Unfortunately they mainly use Discord and Instagram. They post updates on Instagram regularly but are quite active on Discord and often ask for community feedback there and post updates there as well. I've been closely following them for a few months
The printer surveillance is my main draw to this project. EFF basically came to the conclusion that all Western printers likely have some sort of surveillance like that. I've confirmed with them on the Discord that they are not required to implement any such surveillance
It's such a good idea as a project and by the looks of things well executed. I also feel the style of the printer and the fact it can be a roll of paper will lead to interesting project ideas.
TL;DR: I'm surprised this isn't a laser printer, as those are actually quite a bit easier to design and manufacture, especially if you can use a cheap, older, commonly available, remanufacturable toner cartridge.
There are still quality laser printers on the market without extortion and surveillance built-in, unlike inkjets. The need for an open laser printer is less dire than for an open inkjet.
And not a single solid-ink-onto-paper sublimation printer, that I'm aware. There are badge printers still using a dye-sub ribbon, but the Tektronix Phaser, later the Xerox Phaser, is completely gone.
I wonder why. Were the consumables too cheap and the printers too reliable to be commercially viable? Did color laser printers catch up in terms of print quality? Did it have some other fatal flaw?
Hot melt ink/solid ink has a laundry list of problems that complicate it.
- A single ink clog can destroy a printhead.
- partial clogs can result in ugly messes with ink smeared all over the pages and the assembly further smearing on later prints.
- the printer has to be calibrated to the specific formulation of solid ink to work properly. A bad ink batch or calibrating to the wrong formulation (or a drift in specs on the formulation) can cause clogs, print head failures, etc.
- solid ink printing massively complicates lamination if that's something you need to do (ex in an office).
Overall it's a far more unforgiving process. You can't really have aftermarket inks like you can with modern inks and even variations in the first party manufacturing process can have catastrophic effects on the print hardware.
I only used one for a few years, and never thought to laminate the pages because they didn't need it -- dye-sub wax-printed pages were already suitable for outdoor maps because the wax repelled water, and they held up where inkjet pages became a smeary mess immediately.
We definitely did wash our hands before and after loading ink blocks, I remember being cautioned about that.
Oh well. I guess my memories are better than the tech deserved. Won't be the last time.
Every manufacturer volunteered to rob their own customers of anonymity. Even at the OS and application level (Adobe) people are being tagged with robust watermarks. In general, still no one cares. =3
The unique properties of every imaging/printing system are usually robust in identifying specific devices. Not really anonymous if eventually registered, compared, or metadata indexed.
It is also common for people to create urban legends rather than discuss how to actually fix legal policy failures. As previously stated, consumers implicitly gave permission though sustained inaction on industry volunteering to help track customers.
An OSS printer would be cool from a standards/driver perspective, but microfluidics are a nontrivial technology. Bloomberg also paid lobbyists >$23m to try to mandate "AI" R.A.T. installation (company associated with Palantir) on 3D printers to attempt convincing criminals to care about laws again.
It is unclear if such action is consistent with constitutional legal precedents, but it is certainly hilarious to see kids figure out the mess a prior generation creates. Best of luck, =3
As much as this is nice protect, and physical one so different things any, still you cannot give/sell some software/design/media and restrict who, where and how someone can use it (noncommercial, not in this country, not at that phase of moon) while calling it open source, public domain, or similar.
As long as softwsre isn't going to be proprietary, it is a good idea just shouldn't misguide about being open source.
> Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials.
Been waiting for framework to make a regular 2D printer, of any kind, would buy at least two instantly. I will never, never, never buy a fing printer from hp/canon/epson/brother/etc with anti-consumer tech, I rather die.
Unless I'm missing something using this in a commercial application would be a license violation:
> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
> This means that everyone is free to use, share, and modify the project, provided they credit the original author, share derivatives under the same license, and do not use it for commercial purposes.
It's also not opensource yet, there's a vague mention of "when its ready" it'll be released.
What about that license makes you think you can't use the device (i.e. print things) for commercial purposes?
The license applies to the thing, not the thing you print using the thing. Me writing software or prose on a computer running Linux using a GPL editor wouldn't change that the copyright of what I write belongs to me, the author.
You can't make a commercial competitor of this printer using their design, but using the printer for its intended purpose (printing) is obviously unrelated to that.
> You can't make a commercial competitor of this printer using their design
Which means it's not open source. Open source means you have the right to distribute work however you want, including commercially, provided you also provide the source under the same license terms as the original.
The second you slap a non-commercial limitation on there, it ceases to be open source.
It may be using a CC license, but nothing that's marked NC is meaningfully part of the commons. Yes, some guy can make a part to fix his printer, but that guy can't sell those parts to other people.
The existence of a service manual doesn't mean you can get parts once the company disappears or loses interest.
but conditions apply to that. Those rights you mention are not available in every circumstance, specifically in commercial settings in this case. That's the point being made; why many consider that not an open source license (not saying I agree or disagree)
I didn't plan to go into the printer manufacturing business, and there's nothing more open, AFAIK. HP won't let you fix it when they brick your printer for not using their more expensive than blood ink.
This is probably inevitable at this point and at least it's a legit licence and not the weird sad bespoke wobbly nonsense Prusa went with. They clearly need something like this for exactly the same reasons.
To be less facetious though, this seems like a great project, but I print so much less these days than in the past. I printed a lot of color stuff when I was in school; but these days I just settle for black/halftoning from a laser printer, for when I actually need something printed, and color on screen only.
I had an Epson Ecotank for a couple of years. The printer heads got clogged all the time. We bought a series of cleaning products to address it, they often solved the problem for only a few prints. We finally gave up and bought a Brother laser printer.
This project seems like it's trying to address a similar market to the Ecotank. What assurances can the project team provide that OpenPrinter will have better reliability?
and the product browsing page crashes when i apply more than 2 filters or attempt to sort by price. half of the visible products are out of stock or no longer manufactured. really enjoyable experience.
If you print occasionally then laser is the best option. It's just not usable for photo printing. You ideally want to be using the printer every week or two with inkjet.
It sounds like OpenPrinter will be using existing ink cartridges with the print heads built-in; I presume they will therefore have the same reliability.
I have an Ecotank and my parents have one too (data set size of 2 :). I've had it for 4-5 years now and it's superb for my simple use case (occasional low cost printing at home).
I did initially run into clogged heads too, until I scheduled a test print every month which uses all colors. That way no single color stays unused for too long, and it's been working like a charm ever since.
If the heads are already "degraded" there are two (or more?) cleaning programs available from within the official printer driver settings dialog. They did resolve my initial issues.
Epson could definitely do a better job of informing users though by slapping a big warning on the thing saying "you need to print something every X days to avoid issues".
I also had an Epson ink-tank printer (I don't think it was an Ecotank model name, but similar idea) for several years, battled print head clogs all the time. Found that Windex worked pretty well for dissolving the clogs. (The dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding was right about something!) But what eventually got me to switch was that the maintenance cartridge — the big sponge under the printer that soaks up the ink pushed through the heads during a head-cleaning operation — was getting full, and it's not a user-serviceable component in Epson printers! They wanted me to ship it off to their service center, and pay who knows how much to swap out the maintenance cartridge. Nope, not gonna do that.
Ditched Epson for Canon. I've had my Canon ink-tank printer for a couple years now. Had ONE serious clog that required multiple flushes to clear the clog, but mostly it's been clog-free. But the best part is that I can just order a new maintenance cartridge from Canon for about $12 + shipping. So when it fills up (probably in another couple years) I can just swap it out myself and keep on printing.
Won't ever buy another Epson printer again. Canon has been great so far.
Ecotank printers are worse in terms of clogging problems, because there is a tank and a hose vs a sealed cartridge. The ink has to flow through the entire system and that means you will have to print at least once a week.
close, but not quite. I suppose in the way that originally set him off, yes.
It looks like they're using the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license so restricting commercial use which I think would run afoul of the purists definition of Freedom?
It's a cool printer, and I'd much rather have something like this!
I really love the idea of a paper roll rather than individual sheets. Being able to print out to the size you want rather than only in pre-set sizes is quite cool.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
270 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 651 ms ] threadInkjet printing requires orders of magnitude more engineering expertise, materials science, industry experience and financial resources than most people imagine. That is the reason, open inkjet printers don't exist despite having been consumer products with the same drawbacks for more than forty years. That is why this is a pre-crowdfund landing page without a demonstrating a working prototype. I would like to be wrong, but I expect you to be waiting a long time. An inkjet printer is not a collection of off the shelf parts. It is a machine that operates at the edge of chemistry, fluid dynamics, and electro-mechanical design...you have to place tiny tiny drops of liquid ink on commodity wood pulp with precision under arbitrary environmental conditions, get that ink to dry on the wood pulp, but not in tank or nozzel, while producing acceptable color, durability, and ease of use. Also lawyers...there are patents.
Which is to say you can make your gaming PC at home as a one-off if you want. Though personally I won't get near the toxic chemicals used.
But really, I've given up on ink jet printers, and have gone the cheap B&W laser route for anything I need to print at home (In the past year, 2 times, a backup ticket and some paperwork that needed a real signature sent back).
But when I had them, the thing that went bad 99.999% of the time was the cartridges or a clogged nozzle on the head. So the advantage here, on the repairability side not DRM, is the rails and motors?
Also that cutter is going to be a pain, having worked on Lightjet printers, that cutter was nearly all field service issues until the FEs started leaving the "laser" key so lab managers could reset the blade themselves.
I agree that the bigger challenge is going to be patents.
It also wouldn't surprise me to see HP add DRM to cartridges to authenticate the printer itself if this catches on. (Possibly requiring a printer driver/firmware update.)
Frankly, I think 99% of the reason they started integrating the print head with the cartridge was to avoid all the problems you so frequently see on printers that don’t use disposable heads.
Perhaps I am wrong and someone else can explain how ink tank printers resolve these types of issues.
But as someone who likes good quality prints with no fuss, I find that traditional inkjet is worth the extra cost for my needs/wants.
I find the complaints around inkjet printers to be way too harsh.
They usually center around things like:
- The printers not working well and breaking. Yeah, if you buy the cheapest one possible, that is the experience you’ll get, and that’s what most people do. Buy a printer intended for small business use in the $200-300 range and you’ll have a better time.
- The evils of HP Instant Ink. Completely optional and easy to avoid.
- Ink is wildly overpriced and expensive. Technically true, but the alternative is consumer printer companies going out of business and I don’t think that’s hyperbole. If you’re price sensitive you get a laser printer and call it a day; no sense complaining that inkjet users prefer to pay extra to get the advantages of that tech.
One thing I discovered was that there's whole Chinese industries supplying this stuff in the forms of industrial printers and the application-specific cartridges they consume. And they all had one thing in common: They were based around the functionality of an HP printer cartridge. That was the universal interface.
This leads me to believe that a print cartridge format can be supported by the marketplace for a very long time whether HP likes it or not.
[1]: Printing with white is neat. It sounds impossible and there are those who say it can't happen, but it exists. It's just problematic. The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over.
>The head gets perma-clogged with solids within minutes of disuse in open air. So starting a print job is a race: Get everything set up, uncap the cartridge at the last moment, and then put that cap back on ASAP when the job is over
Decades ago I helped manage a local's school IT systems and we had these Epson C84 printers that used a very photo grade ink. The printheads would clog after a year of teachers printing like 1 document in that year. During that time it seemed like regular purging of ink regardless of print or not was what kept the printheads going. Strategies used by third party repair firms included submerging the head in a cleaner to dissolve the ink on the outside, connecting pipes with the same fluid to the inputs of the top to the printhead and then finally pulling pressure to try and dislodge the material through the head. Due to the non removable design of the Epson print heads, my attempts at trying this would destroy many printheads. I'd like to think this would be a solved problem in 2026. In your case why not run a purge liquid the printhead after each print? The printhead could then be primed with fresh ink each time.
We were using fixed-head printers that we found at the bottom of a deep rabbit hole. The work moved through the machine while the printy-bits remained stationary. We were doing this with HP-style monochromatic carts that came loaded with high-solids "ink" (closer to paint, really) that used opaque white pigment.
Unlike Epson's ecosystem, HP carts most-commonly come as assemblies, with a new print head included in the same disposable cartridge as the ink is. The only connection between the carts and the rest of the printer is electrical; there's no plumbing or functional fluids that are external to the carts.
This self-contained nature means that when ink runs out or heads gets clogged, replacement of everything involved with fluids is fast and easy. Production can continue immediately.
It's not problematic at all...other than being expensive. :)
Surely most/all of the patents around the actual inkjet printing function have expired though, right? I had inkjet printers in the mid 00s and if anything I feel like your average inkjet is worse these days.
It would not surprise me if something similar was happening here: HP's current cartridges have at least one piece that is under active patent protection and they don't manufacture any designs that have no patent protection. I don't know enough to state that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I would be shocked to discover that there are counterfeit print heads out there the same way there are counterfeit STM32 microcontrollers.
Unless the patents have something to do with the shape of the cartridge or they somehow have a patent on "technique to fill printer cartridge with ink" which would not be so surprising.
Many corporate and government types, especially lawyers, want control. They will go broke trying to control everyone and everything.
It just seems easier to fire off a cease and desist than to take a risk of other people messing around with your ecosystem.
This already happens for basically every commercially-available ink cartridge.
It's also been widely held that ink cartridge compatibility tools/hacks are allowed under DMCA.
However, it does seem likely that there's probably some shenanigan involved in the area - one example I could think of would be if HP have patented the way the ink cartridges are retained in the printer, for example, that would have to be carefully audited. And there will be license and trade secrets issues with the use of the cartridges, although if they were reverse engineered cleanly and the printer doesn't come with cartridges, those are probably pretty easily side-stepped.
I could totally imagine a rapid upheaval of the patent system as soon as we see it being used against us.
Any patents are probably expired or very close to it.
Instead they use the fact mosfet gates have capacitance, and can therefore store 1 'bit' of information. Through a network of hundreds of MOSFETs, the right bits can be put on all the nozzle gates as needed, and then a 'fire' pulse is sent which for around a microsecond turns on a tiny heater (or not, depending on mosfet gate state). The heater boils some ink, making a pressure wave which travels down a pipe and makes a drop of ink fly out towards the paper.
I suspect this decision is because the custom silicon process needed to manufacture these nozzles is cheaper if they only have n type MOSFETs - and without p type MOSFETs you can't make a typical push pull logic gate.
The nozzles themselves are quite a lot of silicon - perhaps 100mm^2, with deep etched holes, and are effectively disposable, so I assume huge efforts have been taken to reduce costs - including this curious electrical design.
The protocol also is hugely irregular, which I suspect might be to avoid any wires on the chip needing to cross eachother.
You're saying this as if it is a bad thing? I absolutely welcome this decision by the authors!
But how important?
Imagine someone saying the same thing about MongoDB's license, for example.
If you can't legally use the product, the fact that the source is available is meaningless. CC-NC is a source available license, not an open source license.
If we have a common design them surely we want people to be able to build their own, or buy a prebuilt?
If it is a noncommercial licence then it removes the other option to set up a business selling these pre-built. Not everyone wants to build a printer.
> NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
I mean, the licence says that I can't...
https://spritesmods.com/?art=magicbrush
https://spritesmods.com/?art=inker
But maybe I'm emotional, as that company has been taking premium for a broken experience of so many people I know. I didn't expect such project going for their equipment.
Still not worth it. My Brother is hitting 10 years now, and I'm trying to think of many scenarios where I really needed to print colour at home.
Even if you can afford a color laser, the problem is a color MFP (ie including a scanner) occupies a lot more space compared to a equivalent inkjet, and for some people this could be a deal breaker.
all printers are the size of microwave. Inkjets aren't any smaller
> MFPs with ADFs to be exact
at that point you're talking about a full-on office appliance and far above DIY repair scale the discussion is about
Of course I have no way of verifying either way. Still I do think the project looks quite interesting, I'm in the market for a printer and this is certainly the most interesting one I've seen in a while.
A lot of car shops with regular 100% humidity conditions will swear by dot matrix + tractor for feeding paper + printing. Plus, the carbon copy forms are guaranteed to be exact carbon copies which also leads to legal guarantees about copies of paper being provably exactly the same in the court of law.
They're noisier than ink printers, but non-industrial quality can be pretty reasonable for office-level noises.
Quality certainly isn't on par with laser printers, but for text (both Latin and CJK), it's perfectly clear.
Did you mean the late 80s'? Growing up we had a Panasonic dot matrix printer from the mid to late 80s that had no trouble with A4 paper.
A Matrix printer is essentially a typewriter with extra steps and typewriters had been eating any paper for .. a century before?
If the Chinese, who are known for being able to make knockoffs of everything are not able to make inkjet printers, this should tell you how hard it is.
It addition to the print head, reliable paper transport is also really hard. That problem is often sidestepped by using a paper roll or by printing one sheet at a time, as it is the case for the Openprinter.
Per Google, most HP printers are made in China.
A more likely explanation has to do with the economics of ink jet printers. The ink sales are so profitable that HP and other manufacturers subsidize their printers. This leads to prices at or near cost.
Since Ali express vendors can't count on follow on ink sales, they can't compete on price. And competing on price is Ali express's reason for existence.
So, ink jet printer are harder to find on Ali express. At least, low end consumer focused ink jet printers.
Laser printers, which aren't subsidized are common
https://www.delioa.com/products/a4-inkjet-printer/
ZoneWin, a laser printer company, made a clone of both HP LaserJet 1020 and LaserJet M1005, which reuse most of the original/compatible parts (Q2612A cartridge). They claim it's 100% domestic parts only.
https://www.rtmworld.com/news/new-chinese-made-printer-uses-...
There's at least one project that has tried to design an actual DIY/open-source inkjet printer [0], along with inkjet print heads [1].
The ink most likely need some special sauce? But I imagine there's many organizations that can specialize in making the ink so that it can be treated close to a commodity. If not, maybe this can also be engineered?
[0] https://hackaday.io/project/167446-diy-inkjet-printer
[1] https://reprap.org/wiki/Reprappable-inkjet
They do claim that this printer will print in black when the colour cartridge is empty, which they imply is not possible with common printers. The only time I ever encountered that I simply removed the colour cartridge and the printer was happy to print in black.
The paper path itself is mechanically involved, but not to an impossible degree - it's hard to make it work, but it's not MEMS magic, it's manufacturable in the same way advanced 3D printers are manufacturable.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7iAFXCJQM&t=17s&pp=2AERkAIB
Sure it could be fraud but it could also just work.
The rest of a printer aren't too hard to design and make, especially if you don't have super tight budget constraints.
Out of ignorance, I wonder how IPR will work with interoperability rights. Patent rights seem like they might not be exhausted when you buy a spare part to use in third-party device, vs when you buy a spare part for an OEM device.
I'm guessing all the tech here has aged out of patent protection though?
I like the wall mounted example with the output paper holder below. Neat.
Saying "no way you will succeed, is way too difficult! look how hard is it for HP" is absolute non-sense.
Also, if the whole printing head is from HP, and they sell it for the price they do, I do not think is the most advanced science the mankind achieved. I would have such doubt maybe if somebody wants to compete with ASML. But Inkjet? really? such an old technology with all patents expired?
[0] https://www.weizmann.ac.il/WeizmannCompass/sections/features...
I would believe most relevant patents are now expired and that we should be able to build a printer that at least gives sufficient quality prints. Given sufficient motivation and time investment, that is.
- By rolling the paper, will it really stay flat after printing? - How easy / cheap will sourcing ink be?
(I myself don't 2D print enough that an ink based printer makes sense for me. Ink tends to dry, so for me a laser printer that can sit for months at a time makes more sense. I use the scanner as well as my 3D printer far more often.)
I wonder how they will handle the nonsense around yellow tracking dots[1] etc. Hopefully that doesn't become a problem.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots
What's there to handle? They just don't include them and there's no statute that requires them to.
The printer surveillance is my main draw to this project. EFF basically came to the conclusion that all Western printers likely have some sort of surveillance like that. I've confirmed with them on the Discord that they are not required to implement any such surveillance
TL;DR: I'm surprised this isn't a laser printer, as those are actually quite a bit easier to design and manufacture, especially if you can use a cheap, older, commonly available, remanufacturable toner cartridge.
Of course the details of what specific parts are purchaseable on the open market can and will change this calculus a lot.
I wonder why. Were the consumables too cheap and the printers too reliable to be commercially viable? Did color laser printers catch up in terms of print quality? Did it have some other fatal flaw?
- A single ink clog can destroy a printhead.
- partial clogs can result in ugly messes with ink smeared all over the pages and the assembly further smearing on later prints.
- the printer has to be calibrated to the specific formulation of solid ink to work properly. A bad ink batch or calibrating to the wrong formulation (or a drift in specs on the formulation) can cause clogs, print head failures, etc.
- solid ink printing massively complicates lamination if that's something you need to do (ex in an office).
Overall it's a far more unforgiving process. You can't really have aftermarket inks like you can with modern inks and even variations in the first party manufacturing process can have catastrophic effects on the print hardware.
I only used one for a few years, and never thought to laminate the pages because they didn't need it -- dye-sub wax-printed pages were already suitable for outdoor maps because the wax repelled water, and they held up where inkjet pages became a smeary mess immediately.
We definitely did wash our hands before and after loading ink blocks, I remember being cautioned about that.
Oh well. I guess my memories are better than the tech deserved. Won't be the last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots
Every manufacturer volunteered to rob their own customers of anonymity. Even at the OS and application level (Adobe) people are being tagged with robust watermarks. In general, still no one cares. =3
It is also common for people to create urban legends rather than discuss how to actually fix legal policy failures. As previously stated, consumers implicitly gave permission though sustained inaction on industry volunteering to help track customers.
An OSS printer would be cool from a standards/driver perspective, but microfluidics are a nontrivial technology. Bloomberg also paid lobbyists >$23m to try to mandate "AI" R.A.T. installation (company associated with Palantir) on 3D printers to attempt convincing criminals to care about laws again.
It is unclear if such action is consistent with constitutional legal precedents, but it is certainly hilarious to see kids figure out the mess a prior generation creates. Best of luck, =3
So not open source.
Are you miffed by the restriction on you selling derivative open printers?
As long as softwsre isn't going to be proprietary, it is a good idea just shouldn't misguide about being open source.
https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
> Open Source
> Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials.
Calling CC-BY-NC "Open Source" is a blatant lie.
https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/printers/#Cheap%20used%20laser...
> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
> This means that everyone is free to use, share, and modify the project, provided they credit the original author, share derivatives under the same license, and do not use it for commercial purposes.
It's also not opensource yet, there's a vague mention of "when its ready" it'll be released.
The license applies to the thing, not the thing you print using the thing. Me writing software or prose on a computer running Linux using a GPL editor wouldn't change that the copyright of what I write belongs to me, the author.
You can't make a commercial competitor of this printer using their design, but using the printer for its intended purpose (printing) is obviously unrelated to that.
Which means it's not open source. Open source means you have the right to distribute work however you want, including commercially, provided you also provide the source under the same license terms as the original.
The second you slap a non-commercial limitation on there, it ceases to be open source.
The existence of a service manual doesn't mean you can get parts once the company disappears or loses interest.
Some previous discussion on the crowdfunding:
Inkjet printer with DRM-free ink will be launched via a crowdfunding campaign (2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45423404
To be less facetious though, this seems like a great project, but I print so much less these days than in the past. I printed a lot of color stuff when I was in school; but these days I just settle for black/halftoning from a laser printer, for when I actually need something printed, and color on screen only.
This project seems like it's trying to address a similar market to the Ecotank. What assurances can the project team provide that OpenPrinter will have better reliability?
I see the same people have been in charge of product design and marketing at Brother for the last twenty years...
I did initially run into clogged heads too, until I scheduled a test print every month which uses all colors. That way no single color stays unused for too long, and it's been working like a charm ever since.
If the heads are already "degraded" there are two (or more?) cleaning programs available from within the official printer driver settings dialog. They did resolve my initial issues.
Epson could definitely do a better job of informing users though by slapping a big warning on the thing saying "you need to print something every X days to avoid issues".
Ditched Epson for Canon. I've had my Canon ink-tank printer for a couple years now. Had ONE serious clog that required multiple flushes to clear the clog, but mostly it's been clog-free. But the best part is that I can just order a new maintenance cartridge from Canon for about $12 + shipping. So when it fills up (probably in another couple years) I can just swap it out myself and keep on printing.
Won't ever buy another Epson printer again. Canon has been great so far.
It looks like they're using the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license so restricting commercial use which I think would run afoul of the purists definition of Freedom?
It's a cool printer, and I'd much rather have something like this!
s/Reparaible/Repairable
Perhaps because it's irrelevant [0].
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html