I stopped buying HP inkjet printers a long time ago. They are horrible.
The HP 722c was their last decent inkjet.
What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
51–60 of 177 posts
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force on us. Twitter has the right to shut down sp…
How about we start characterizing "company lying to us" as theft, and put them in actual jail for it, then? If you want to treat corporations like people with liberties, let's make basic laws like fraud and theft have consequences. We shoot and choke to death people selling cigarettes or cds 'illegally' on the side of the street why can't Wells Fargo executives go to jail for theft?
[deleted]
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
The information included with the product likely states that it should only be used with HP inks. No bait, no switch.
should, or must? I've seen plenty of products that say you should use only manufacturer-approved products. But I know in the U.S. manufacturers aren't allowed to void warranties just because a third-party component is used. But can manufacturers really step around that by disabling the ability to use third-party components?
The point would be that they weren't claiming working with other inks as a feature, which really undermines the bait and switch argument.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#54I once got a full refund on a laptop outside of its warranty period because a software update (Windows 8.1) effectively bricked the machine. I demanded it under the UK Sale of Goods Act, which states that a product must be fit for purpose, which it clearly no longer was once the automatic update had happened. I do wonder if this can be more broadly applied to consumer products that effectively change their behaviour…
The issue is why do people in UK/USA put up with this Orwellian customer control business model? In Asia if a company were to do these things the business would be burnt to the ground, and/or family selling the inferior by design products. ... This is silly, the printer biz has always been 'give away the camera, and take the first born when they need film' You go abroad ASIA and every printer ink or cartridge, as a b…
>.. Orwellian customer control business model?
When I think of "Orwellian" I think of government control that is forced upon the individual, not simply bad practices of a few players in a single industry. Of course someone could just buy another make of printer. It's not like they have no other choice, lots of people suggested Brother printers as good alternatives when this story first made the rounds. They could make prints at an office supply company or even their local library.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because consumer choice is a very weak weapon against your freedoms being taken away. Political action is what corporations fear, in particular the threat of organized support behind ideas to regulate them more heavily. Edit: RMS quote: "All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people’s rights with one hand tied behind our backs, using nothing except the individual option to say no to a deal. We should use democ…
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force on us. Twitter has the right to shut down sp…
> and they have rights to sell what they want
No, they don't. They cannot sell a device that harms you or your neighbours, for instance. More to the point, they cannot sell a device that prevents competition.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their competitors may be subject to the same regulations, but new regulations force companies to develop products that comply with the new regulations. R&D is a huge expense, and you can't guarantee the product you develop is going to be better than your competitors. Furthermore, their competitors might already have a product which meets the new regulations, or one which can be easily modified to meet them. This can…
Regulation demanding not to screw your customers doesn't seem like such a big burden to me.
I fear it would never meet the paper as "don't screw your customers." It would be something more along the lines of, "Cartridges should be at least the size of (exact dimensions of existing HP cartridges) and work a reasonable amount of time." To which HP could easily counter, "reasonable" is dependent on freshness and quality of the lines or some bs like that.
Edit: to clarify, I agree with you that regulation to the consumers benefit would be good, but am assuming that the law written would just be to HP's benefit anyway
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#57A brother MFC is $250, is sturdier and does not hate me as a consumer. Changing a toner is $50 per cartridge. I recommend it to every person looking for a printer: Buy a laser printer.
Another Brother laser printer user here. I did have some strange networking problems when I initially configured mine for wireless use. The Macs on the network consistently lost the ability to connect.
My son eventually resolved the problem, though I never bothered to ask how. Never had that issue with Canon, but so far, I much happier with the Brother. The toner cartridge lasts WAY longer than the Canon inkjet and per-age cost is less. I did give up color, but I don't need that often enough to worry about - I can just print at work or go to FedEx/Kinkos.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#58I generally like the EFF, and I'm a member (albeit at a low paying level)... but if you're really unhappy about this, isn't it better just to stop buying HP printer products? Rather than being so activist & "omg outrage!", why doesn't the EFF publish a list of printers that the EFF currently does recommend? Almost like the Wirecutter does with their product testing reviews. (It sounds like Epson might be one alternat…
Boycotts are a pretty weak weapon compared to the ability to tarnish a company's reputation. I've yet to see a boycott really have any effect in the tech marketplace, but negative publicity often elicits some sort of response when it starts to get mainstream media coverage.
I didn't mean a boycott as such - I have an HP printer, and I knew when I bought it that it requires proprietary/DRM ink. I'm surprised any customers who care about ink DRM would have bought an HP printer. Their website is full of pages about the "anti-counterfeit" ink security in their printer products.
I do hope the customers this affects can get refunds, but it seems to me that if you want a printer where you can refill the ink yourself or use third-party cartridges, it would be better to just buy a printer from a company that already supports that.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#59I generally like the EFF, and I'm a member (albeit at a low paying level)... but if you're really unhappy about this, isn't it better just to stop buying HP printer products? Rather than being so activist & "omg outrage!", why doesn't the EFF publish a list of printers that the EFF currently does recommend? Almost like the Wirecutter does with their product testing reviews. (It sounds like Epson might be one alternat…
The specific problem here was that this was a booby-trap feature that users couldn't prevent from happening because it got "added" to the product months after the purchasing decision. HP was able to go forward in time to modify the product, post-purchase, but you can't go back in time to get a refund.
Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because consumer choice is a very weak weapon against your freedoms being taken away. Political action is what corporations fear, in particular the threat of organized support behind ideas to regulate them more heavily. Edit: RMS quote: "All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people’s rights with one hand tied behind our backs, using nothing except the individual option to say no to a deal. We should use democ…
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force on us. Twitter has the right to shut down sp…
> companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech
Maybe they shouldn't. Companies are not people, and as such don't have the same moral standing. Only the people that comprise them do.