Xerox to acquire Lexmark

Legacy, History, and “Blast from the Past” Feel

• Many are surprised Xerox and Lexmark are still significant companies, likening the headline to something from the 1990s.
• Lexmark is widely recognized as an IBM printer/keyboard/typewriter spinoff; its roots tie into IBM’s broader pattern of divestments (PCs to Lenovo, disks to Hitachi, etc.).
• Xerox historically made its own devices but in recent years has resold or rebadged printers from Lexmark and others; some models share hardware, differing mainly by firmware/chips.
• Rochester (Xerox) and Lexington (Lexmark) are both described as ex–company towns that transitioned toward “college town” or diversified economies.

Employee and Local Impact

• Multiple commenters recount long-running layoffs, offshoring, and shrinking R&D at Lexmark and Xerox.
• Lexington residents say Lexmark is no longer a dominant employer; the city has university, manufacturing (e.g., Toyota), and other tech jobs, so the acquisition is not seen as locally “devastating.”

Why Ninestar Sold and Regulatory Context

• Lexmark’s Chinese owner Ninestar faced a U.S. import ban over forced-labor concerns, forcing Lexmark to find new suppliers and sell assets for liquidity.
• Complex deal structures (preferred equity from a PE firm, regulatory firewalls, a special Lexmark oversight board) limited integration and returns.
• The original thesis—that Ninestar could better control counterfeit supplies—was seen as broken; selling to Xerox is framed as exiting a messy situation.

Strategy, Consolidation, and Market Outlook

• Official language about “complementary operations” is widely read as code for cost-cutting and shared back-office functions.
• Some see upside: Xerox regaining in-house printer manufacturing and aligning with an established brand in B2B print, IoT, and “work from anywhere/automation.”
• Others criticize consolidation as hurting competition and argue failing firms should be broken up instead of absorbed.
• Several note printing is a shrinking or stagnant market, unattractive to startups, with incumbents sustaining it via razor-blade models and user-hostile practices.

Product Experiences and Technology

• Lexmark earns praise for durable, long-lived lasers and for driverless IPP Everywhere support; some fear Xerox might drop that.
• Other technicians report Lexmarks that jam or fail when poorly maintained, while heavy-use environments see millions of pages with basic upkeep.
• Xerox printers also get positive reviews for reliability and network ease of use; both vendors support standards like Mopria.
• Brother is repeatedly cited as an example of “exceptional” consumer printers, in contrast to general printer frustration.

Corporate Jargon and Brand Perception

• Lexmark’s marketing copy about “cloud-enabled imaging” and “business transformation” is heavily mocked as meaningless buzzword soup that obscures “we make printers.”
• Commenters joke about turning the blurb into techno lyrics and note such generic claims could describe almost any B2B vendor.

Nostalgia: Keyboards and Old-School Hardware

• The Lexmark/IBM connection prompts extensive discussion of Model M and Model F keyboards, Unicomp spinoffs, and their extreme durability (including anecdotes of dishwashing them).
• Opinions diverge on modern Unicomp quality and rollover behavior, but the old IBM hardware is widely revered as overbuilt and virtually indestructible.