3 ms·

Why can't they just be replaced with what is essentially a normal/embedded PC, in the form factor of a printer/fax machine? Sending the "fax" simply emails a PD

Why can't they just be replaced with what is essentially a normal/embedded PC, in the form factor of a printer/fax machine? Sending the "fax" simply emails a PDF of the scanned pages over the internet and then prints the "fax" automatically?

zabzonk 5y ago
> Why can't they just be replaced with what is essentially a normal/embedded PC, in the form factor of a printer/fax machine? That is effectively what a modern dedicated fax machine is. They are very cheap commodity items. The issue here is not the hardware, but the use of faxes at all.
ale42 5y ago
Possibly because the channel on which the "fax" would travel (e-mailed PDF) is not the same as an actual fax (although nowadays it is probably going to be over T.38 transported over IP, so in the end probably not much changes in terms of security). If those PDFs were properly encrypted using a widely available PKI, then it would be a better replacement for an outdated technology. There might also be legal requirements preventing the unencrypted transmission of some type of documents (e.g. court documents) over the Internet. There is also iFax, which is supported by several vendors, which is essentially like a fax over e-mail. Many multipurpose fax/printer/scanner machines support it.
apostacy 5y ago
This question reminds me of the now infamous comment[1] asking why Dropbox exists when you can just use an SFTP server. Just because there are technologically superior solutions is hardly what matters. You need to factor in the experience of the users. Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better. Under certain circumstances, I would be more comfortable faxing documents somewhere than emailing a pdf somewhere. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- kevincox 5y ago
  No, this is the opposite of what the parent said. They said that they could *keep the UX* but improve the underlying technology. This would remove the dependence on the phone system, and open up some users, departments and offices from moving away from fax slowly. They aren't suggesting that every user sets up their own raspberry PI, but instead suggesting that IT can transparently replace the technology.
  - lloydatkinson 5y ago
    Yes, exactly, this is exactly what I said. Replace the internals but keep it the same externally. Quite frankly I'm sick of these bad faith arguments where someone puts words in my mouth and then creates a strawman and argues against that. Thank you for actually understanding and explaining what I meant. It's a nice change.
    - apostacy 5y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean to mischaracterize what you said. It sounded like you were saying you wanted to change the interface somewhat. The reason that I thought that was because if it was a 100% transparent interface identical to an existing fax experience, then there are already solutions like that, but we just don't notice them because they are so transparent. Regular consumers sending faxes over copper already have their fax calls digitized, encrypted, and compressed. And offices have pretty simple solutions to manage fax numbers from their servers. I think Exchange server might be able to do it out of the box now. The reason I compared it to the "dropbox" comment was that I think that it would be a case of needless over-optimization.
  - apostacy 5y ago
    I thought it was clear that I was opposed to moving away from phone numbers. Of course if the system that OP was talking about was almost completely identical to a fax experience, then what I am saying does not apply. This is what the OP said: > Sending the "fax" simply emails a PDF of the scanned pages over the internet and then prints the "fax" automatically? Which, I read as implying that the user would have to enter something like an email address, to which I replied: > Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better. Of course, if an IT department mapped an POTS phone numbers to their mail server, and then had that email print out a pdf attachment on the other end, then yes, that would be fine. But, actually this is done already in some places anyway. My old university had a system where incoming faxes were converted into emails and forwarded as email attachments, and I don't see why the IT dept could not have also configured it to automatically print out incoming emails, or even relay to an outgoing fax line. But it does seem to me like a lot of trouble.
Iv 5y ago
Because you still need to be able to send a fax to an actual fax machine over a land line.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  And why can't the services backing the modern fax machine I suggested do that in the backend?

zabzonk 5y ago

> Why can't they just be replaced with what is essentially a normal/embedded PC, in the form factor of a printer/fax machine? That is effectively what a modern dedicated fax machine is. They are very cheap commodity items. The issue here is not the hardware, but the use of faxes at all.

ale42 5y ago

Possibly because the channel on which the "fax" would travel (e-mailed PDF) is not the same as an actual fax (although nowadays it is probably going to be over T.38 transported over IP, so in the end probably not much changes in terms of security). If those PDFs were properly encrypted using a widely available PKI, then it would be a better replacement for an outdated technology. There might also be legal requirements preventing the unencrypted transmission of some type of documents (e.g. court documents) over the Internet. There is also iFax, which is supported by several vendors, which is essentially like a fax over e-mail. Many multipurpose fax/printer/scanner machines support it.

apostacy 5y ago

This question reminds me of the now infamous comment[1] asking why Dropbox exists when you can just use an SFTP server. Just because there are technologically superior solutions is hardly what matters. You need to factor in the experience of the users. Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better. Under certain circumstances, I would be more comfortable faxing documents somewhere than emailing a pdf somewhere. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

kevincox 5y ago
No, this is the opposite of what the parent said. They said that they could *keep the UX* but improve the underlying technology. This would remove the dependence on the phone system, and open up some users, departments and offices from moving away from fax slowly. They aren't suggesting that every user sets up their own raspberry PI, but instead suggesting that IT can transparently replace the technology.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  Yes, exactly, this is exactly what I said. Replace the internals but keep it the same externally. Quite frankly I'm sick of these bad faith arguments where someone puts words in my mouth and then creates a strawman and argues against that. Thank you for actually understanding and explaining what I meant. It's a nice change.
  - apostacy 5y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to mischaracterize what you said. It sounded like you were saying you wanted to change the interface somewhat. The reason that I thought that was because if it was a 100% transparent interface identical to an existing fax experience, then there are already solutions like that, but we just don't notice them because they are so transparent. Regular consumers sending faxes over copper already have their fax calls digitized, encrypted, and compressed. And offices have pretty simple solutions to manage fax numbers from their servers. I think Exchange server might be able to do it out of the box now. The reason I compared it to the "dropbox" comment was that I think that it would be a case of needless over-optimization.
- apostacy 5y ago
  I thought it was clear that I was opposed to moving away from phone numbers. Of course if the system that OP was talking about was almost completely identical to a fax experience, then what I am saying does not apply. This is what the OP said: > Sending the "fax" simply emails a PDF of the scanned pages over the internet and then prints the "fax" automatically? Which, I read as implying that the user would have to enter something like an email address, to which I replied: > Besides that, there is still no replacement for phone numbers. A phone number immediately returns if it is available to receive a transmission, and a fax on the other end confirms that it is set up, and you can be pretty sure that it isn't just going to languish in an unread mailbox somewhere. A phone number also takes more effort to set up, so will probably be treated better. Of course, if an IT department mapped an POTS phone numbers to their mail server, and then had that email print out a pdf attachment on the other end, then yes, that would be fine. But, actually this is done already in some places anyway. My old university had a system where incoming faxes were converted into emails and forwarded as email attachments, and I don't see why the IT dept could not have also configured it to automatically print out incoming emails, or even relay to an outgoing fax line. But it does seem to me like a lot of trouble.

Iv 5y ago

Because you still need to be able to send a fax to an actual fax machine over a land line.

lloydatkinson 5y ago
And why can't the services backing the modern fax machine I suggested do that in the backend?