Talk:Lexmark

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Kentucky Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Bigem 1 (talk · contribs)

Lexmark product list

Do you people think there is need for Lexmark recent years product list / comparison ? Artist (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good and bad

I'll agree that the Lexmark inkjet products are total crap. But their laser printers are the exact opposite. Even their cheaper printers include PostScript support and their higher-end printers are very heavy duty and their toners are rated for 20.000pgs whereas most laser printers these days have toner rated for 5.000pgs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.171.131 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an ad

Goodness, this entire article reads like one big promotional paper for Lexmark (with the exception of the court cases). From what I've heard and seen on the web, Lexmark's printers are cheap products that are temperamental and fragile. Many customers have complained about the quality and the overall view is negative. Mazin07 ^(C)/_(T) 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who works for a company that sells them, this is our experience, as well. Don't forget that their ink is expensive, too. ;) Without something to cite, however, you can't state any of this in the article. You might take a look at PC World and PC Magazine's reader surveys of printers, though... 205.157.110.11 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who works for them, The consumer division that was responsible for their poorly performing inkjets was recently rolled into their laserjet divison, one which has always performed well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.92.22 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neglects to mention keyboards

Lexmark was originally a printer as well as a keyboard manufacturer. At some point keyboards became a commodity and they left that business. The fact that they had IBM's keyboard division was a very big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.240.36 (talk) 05:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

true...the technology was licensed from ibm, bought, and sold to Unicomp, a small company in Lexington Kentucky in charge of the model M, an IBM original. Lexmark added a drainage slot to the IBM model M, which made it quite a bit more useful in corporate settings. To this day, Lexmark "made for IBM" keyboards still exist.

Yes, I happen to have an IBM Model M keyboard made by Lexmark in 1993. They're still sold secondhand. I'll try to find some information on when IBM licensed keyboard making to Lexmark. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content instead of giving it historical perspective

I am concerned that lately we're seeing the removal of things that Lexmark has been engaged in without putting those things into historical perspective. This is an encyclopedia, not merely the latest information about the company or a brochure. For example, this edit "Took out OEM information, as Lexmark no longer manufactures for these companies", but it doesn't deserve any mention for what Lexmark previously did? The History section is short but certainly there's a lot of history to go there, right? If you keep deleting non-current information instead of saying it's something that happened, you're not treating the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making sense of Apex acquisition

I have been trying to make sense of what is happening to Lexmark since its acquisition by Apex Technology. If anyone can make this more clear (using reliable citations), that would be useful. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it certainly seems disingenuous to call a subsidiary of a Zhuhai, Guangdong, company an "American company" in the lead. There's a source at Qianshan Subdistrict about the acquisition but it'll probably take someone doing a dedicated article about Apex to do a full treatment. — LlywelynII 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selectric

Why is there no mention of the Selectric or what-ever IBM's typewriter was called when that branch went to Lexmark?Kdammers (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location of owning consortium

An IP editor who has a habit of removing the locations of multinational corporations removed the locations of the three consortium owners of Lexmark. The IP editor said that not all three companies are Chinese. I looked them up and found:

Legend Capital is based in Beijing. "Beijing-based venture capital and growth investment firm Legend Capital Management Co. Ltd": [[1]]
Apex Technology is based in Guangdong. "Zhuhai, Guangdong, China" [[2]]
PAG Asia is based in Hong Kong. "33/F, Three Pacific Place 1 Queen's Road East Hong Kong Hong Kong (SAR)": [[3]]

So clearly they're all in China. I'm reverting the editor's change. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical correction

Rather than seeing its production come to an end, a group of former Lexmark and IBM employees purchased the license, tooling and design rights for buckling-spring technology and, in April 1996, reestablished the business as Unicomp.

That's not correct. IBM didn't renew its patent on the buckling-spring switch; it expired in 1989, enabling a couple of other companies (e.g. AT&T) to produce their own short-lived BS boards. It's also quite obvious IBM didn't assert any rights to the Model M's design, as countless other companies produced nearly identical (but not as well-made) boards for IBM "clone" machines. So when the Lexmark workers bought the Lexmark plant, they didn't have to buy any "licenses" or "rights", just the factory itself. I've adjusted the article accordingly. Cheers! – AndyFielding (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]