The NubePrint Report measures to which extent the most frequent network printer and copier models are MPS ready. The analysis is independent to printer and copier vendors, and is based on data from printer models in a living MPS environment.

1. NubePrint REPORT
MPS COMPLIANT - ANALYSIS OF PRINTER / COPIER MODELS
July 2011
MPS is a business that depends on the capacity of the printer or copier to be monitored from remote,
combined with the capabilities of the service provider to deliver supported by the right technology.
The NubePrint Report measures to which extend the most frequent network printer and copier models
are MPS ready. The analysis is fully independent to printer and copier vendors, and is based on actual
data from printer models in a life MPS environment. The data contained in the graphs should be
relevant enough. Narratives are provided just as guidance for a better understanding of the graphs.
This report provides relevant information to printer and copier vendors, MPS service providers, future
MPS providers, end-customers and in general anyone interested on getting inside information of the
MPS business.
The NubePrint Report will come out every six months on the first month of each semester, in order to
facilitate the most updated information and the market trend.
Any related question regarding the NubePrint report can be sent to info@nubeprint.com.
Definitions:
Managed Print Service Association (http://yourmpsa.org/) defines “Managed Print Services is the active
management and optimization of document output devices and related business processes” .
MPS compliant status is the ability for a document output device to be fully serviced by a service
provider remotely with zero intervention from the printer or copier user. As a consequence, only
network connected models are considered.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 1 of 9

2. Each device is graded according to the following criteria:
 No MPS: the lack on providing relevant data makes the device model not suitable for MPS. This
device model cannot be part of an MPS solution.
 Major issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it produces a severe impact on costs
control and therefore on the profitability of an MPS program on this printer/copier model. MPS
workload full automation is not possible.
 Medium issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it does produce an impact on costs
control, although the impact on the profitability can be limited. MPS workload automation is
possible only partially.
 Minor issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it prevents from providing certain
MPS services like maintenance, billing per page color and monochrome separately, or printer /
copier identification.
 Full MPS compliant: the document output device model can be fully managed automatically for
MPS. Costs and profitability are under control. Workload is fully removed (tasks can be
automated).
Limitations of the analysis:
The analysis focuses on the ability of the printer to provide enough data so that a good MPS technology
can potentially drive the services. The quality of the data provided is ignored working under the
assumption that it is stable and accurate.
NubePrint report does not take into consideration the technology used by the service provider to
handle MPS services. It is assumed that if the device can provide the data, the service provider will find
the right technical resources to trigger the service.
This analysis has been performed over 500 document output device models of 17 different vendors. All
models have been analyzed using an average of 18 individual units each.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 2 of 9

3. The models analyzed are
classified in 4 different
types: monochrome
printers, color printers,
monochrome MFP
(multifunctional) and color
MFP. 38% of the
population analyzed is
MFP while 62% is printer,
divided almost by halves
between monochrome
and color.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 3 of 9

4. Market compliance:
Overall:
The overall picture of the population analyzed shows that 41% of the models are full MPS compliant,
while the remaining 59% have some kind of limitations. There has been no models identified not
compliant to MPS, meaning having a showstopper for MPS.
While 51% are models for which
an MPS service can be delivered
with no serious impact on the
profitability of the service itself,
49% do require a much
advanced technology that
would some-how compensate
the lack of the device model
capability for MPS. In other
words, half of the models
analyzed do expose the service
MPS provider to risks in terms
of the quality of the service and
profitability or competitiveness.
These models are significantly
less efficient in controlling the
device needs, the associated costs, and in terms of managing remotely in an automated way.
Per type of device:
The limitations found per type of device make the single function printers as the most MPS friendly
devices: 49% are full MPS ready, compared to 29% of the MFP. Color printers get the highest level with
52%. Monochrome MFP get the worst results: 41% do show major limitations to MPS. Comparing color
and monochrome devices, color get the best results with 45% showing full MPS capabilities and just 6%
with major limitations. 38% of monochrome devices are full MPS ready, while 37% do show major
limitations.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 4 of 9

5. Per vendor:
Figure 5 represents the detail per vendor. It immediately raises the attention how different each one
positions. The greener is the bar of a vendor, the more MPS friendly are its printer and copier models. It
is relevant the fact that there is no significant difference if the vendor origin is copier industry or printer
industry, although we would have tendency to think that copier vendors should be in a more advanced
position.
The area of the most advanced MPS compliancy is populated by vendors like HP, Sharp, Epson or Dell.
On the opposite side are Gestetner and Brother. The middle range is covered by companies like
Lexmark, Ricoh or Oki.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 5 of 9

6. Type of limitations:
Limitations to MPS ready are driven by the capacity of the device to provide relevant data so that an
expert MPS technology can automatically trigger and manage the services. The data required has been
grouped in the following major categories:
 Black toner / ink level
 Color toner / ink level
 Other consumables level (drums, developers, kits…)
 Access to the display of the device
 A separate color counter
 s/n identified
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 6 of 9

7. Overall:
Figure 6 is showing how frequently each type of limitation is found among the device models having
limitations.
Other consumable level is not available in 34% of the devices. More surprising though is that 25% of the
printer and copier models analyzed do not show the black toner / ink level. And even more relevant is
that 10% of the color devices do not provide a color counter and 11% do not provide levels for the color
cartridges.
Per type of device:
The bars on the figure bellow do show similar distribution for MFP and their correspondent printer.
Color printer and color MFP have a similar distribution of missing data. Something similar can be said for
the monochrome printer and the monochrome MFP.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 7 of 9

8. Color device models do frequently miss the level of other consumables (54%), and the color counter
page(23%). In the case of monochrome devices the most frequent limitation is the lack of black toner /
ink level (39%).
Per vendor:
An analysis of the limitations per vendor reveals the weaknesses of each one in terms of being MPS
compliancy. Some vendors can make a big step forward by just focusing on a specific aspect; as for
example, Lexmark would remove 80% of its limitations to MPS ready product by just ensuring that level
is provided to non toner consumables.
The picture for other vendors do show a more complex situation, where no specific limitation concept is
assuming a prominent role. This is the case for example of HP and Gestetner.
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 8 of 9

9. Conclusions:
The explosion of MPS demand during 2010 should be followed by an effort from the printer and copier
vendors to have their products MPS compliant. With only 41% of the models analyzed being fully
compliant, there is room for improvement. If this does not take place, the demand may long term be
redirected to those devices that can be efficiently managed by the service providers. But meanwhile a
bad experience from the end customer due to a deficient service may cause a negative impact on the
growth of the market.
NUBE PRINT, S.L.
www.nubeprint.com
email: info@nubeprint.com
Phone: + 34 910.010.247
Copyright NubePrint - www.nubeprint.com Page 9 of 9