Live data from Hacker News

What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

eff.org

61–70 of 177 posts

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#61
post #44
post #31

I 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…

It would be interesting to return notebook after 1 year, because you disagree with Windows EULA.

I can't recall - do you have to agree to the Windows EULA before or after the automatic update?

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#62
post #13

A 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.

go black and white for even more savings.

i've never actually needed color, ever.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#63
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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

A more hopeful, less cynical view would be that consumer protection laws do exist, and it's reasonable to assume that in the absence of any such laws, sellers would certainly try to get away with much more than they currently are. So regulation does work, at least to some extent.

To be sure, I don't know that new regulation is needed in this particular case. HP may have broken an existing law already, but I'm not a lawyer. The bigger point is that lawmakers deal with ambiguity all the time, and if they can be convinced to make a law for a purpose, they surely have the means to do it. The convincing is the hard part, which is why taking issues like this one into the political arena is sometimes necessary.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#64
Full disclosure, I am a former HP Engineer who worked with HP Labs, mostly in the Computer Vision area, and 100% productizing their labs research into viable profit streams. Your milage on my comments may vary. I am not going to attempt to justify what HP does but it will probably sound as though I am (try to remember myself and my entire team were laid off as unprofitable because we were 5% off on our $1 Billion revenue goal, that stung a bit). I will attempt to throw a few business comments that no one is mentioning, and a few engineering thoughts that no one is sharing, into the mix so that you can see an entire picture.

How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP? Internally, we used to call HP an Ink seller thinly veiled as a technical company. They make more money in the refill market than they do in the cartridge market, though their gross in the cartridge market is still very high. This is because selling bottles of ink with syringes and instructions to refill is way cheaper than selling new cartridges with the manufacturing of the rather complex pieces in the cartridge, the packaging, the shipping to the stores, and the marketing. So why would they suddenly shoot themselves in the foot and kill that market? I'll get there.

I hear you say "HP makes so much in ink sales they are trying to monopolize the market and squeeze just a bit more revenue out of it!". I hate to break it to you, most people just buy the refills at Walmart or Costco from the giant displays and have no idea that their printers will be borked if they don't. A majority of the refillers refill with an HP authorized refiller (those people you meet in mall kiosks, most are authorized, they won't bork your printer). Actually HP loses far more money from people using crappy ink refills and crappy knock off cartridges and then calling up to customer service and saying their printers were ruined, thus sending out new printers and ink. The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings.

So, the technical. Someone in the comments mentions "Why not just build a new printer company! Printing technology can't be that hard!" A further comment says "Oh you could, but wait until the patent lawyers come to get you!" Well, true. A lot of printing technology is patented and pretty locked down. But it's disingenuous to say that printing technology can't be that hard. Imagine the following scenario:

You just bought a brand new iPhone 7 with a 12 MP ultra clear lens. You have a party at your house and snap a photo of your child with their technically inept grandparent. Grandparent says "I don't use the facebooks, and I don't understand mail with an e, print me a copy of that photo!" No problem, your HP printer is wirelessly on your network. You print from your phone onto photo paper.

Where's the hard part of this technical equation? Well a ton of engineering went into that small 12 MP camera, processing, the wireless network for delivery, etc. But hell, you want to be able to print that photo on any old glossy paper you bought from someone, using a knock off cartridge, with any ink they shove into it. And it better come out looking like an Ansel Adams original, or damn it, HP screwed you as a consumer again!

In order for you to get the sharp colors in the right hues with the perfect lines it takes a lot of engineering. In order for you to get the paper to come out dry (either we're talking photo printing or just your black and white document) and not bleed onto the back of the next page in the tray, it takes technology. I'm sorry Cory, but your analogy with the toaster does not hold true. If I get a new toaster and throw bread into it, I only have to try a few dials and settings to get my toast to come out the way I like it. With printing and ink, there are literally thousands of variables from head design to spray to the viscosity of the ink, and on and on and on. Remember for a moment, consumers don't want think about the angle, velocity, and aeration of their red ink, not to mention how to combat humidity to not ruin the viscosity of the ink between the head and the paper (even if it's only for a fraction of a millisecond). They just want a perfect print. And HP just wants their consumers, on the whole, to like their products and not complain to much, and keep on buying stuff.

Now, if you really want to scare the pants off of HP and get them out of this market, digitize everything and stop printing. Get tablets for everyone you know. Use them at work and at home. Print less. This is what really worries them in the market.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#65
I want to know if this is classed as fraud or not. According to the original story I read, the printer allegedly reported that the cartridge was either broken or missing, and the system was programmed to lie in this way on purpose.

Lying to a person in order to gain pecuniary advantage is fraud. Is this analysis correct?

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#66
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

Government control like DMCA is very much put in place by big corporations trough the corruption of congress. I'm not saying the control is total but we're certainly getting there. Even if there are alternatives today they are getting slowly stripped away through more regulation and reallocation of funding. It's not a far stretch to entertain the view that we're under Orwellian control.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#67
post #13

A 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.

Random info because I used to work at an office supply store: Most brother toner cartridges are cheaper because they separate the drum (That extra piece you take apart and place the cartridge in when you replace the toner) from the toner container. This makes for cheaper cartridges, but at some point you will have to replace the drum and that can sometimes be as much as a new printer. That said drum units last for >10,000 pages usually. Overall in my opinion it's a better design than HP or Cannon who's cartridges include the drum and are thus more expensive up front, because you are only replacing what needs to be replaced at the time.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#68

Full disclosure, I am a former HP Engineer who worked with HP Labs, mostly in the Computer Vision area, and 100% productizing their labs research into viable profit streams. Your milage on my comments may vary. I am not going to attempt to justify what HP does but it will probably sound as though I am (try to remember myself and my entire team were laid off as unprofitable because we were 5% off on our $1 Billion rev…

Yay Stockholm syndrome.

"How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP?"

Keeping in mind that the median personal income in the US is around 45k per year, how much would you care whether HP made that printer ink or not if you invested hard-earned salary in a printer several months ago, and stocked up on a few hundred bucks worth of cheaper ink, only to have HP secretly make it obsolete?

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#69
Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are obviously wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available.

Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really need to push all companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels pressured to go that route just to stay competitive. And if competition is not an issue, and it really is just a scam for more money, executives need to be going to jail.

It is not hard to imagine a slightly modified printer cartridge that saves virtually all of the electronics and casing, and just plugs in a new ink pod; or, one that has a “gas tank” kind of port where you can add more ink. They just need to do it.

Re: What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers

#70

Earlier 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…

> 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.

You're taking that statement too literally. When people say something like that it's with the understanding they imply legal provisions apply.

So, in this case, if it's not legal and HP committed some commercial offence they can and should be sued for non compliance.

Post reply on HN