Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 177 posts

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

#81

Post by witty_username »

jackmott wrote: post #39
smithkl42 wrote: post #35

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…

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?

But financial crimes are illegal. Could you point out a specific person/case?

Wells Fargo fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine.

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

#82

Post by untothebreach »

icefo wrote: post #78
makecheck wrote: post #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…

Epson did it: http://www.epson.com/ecotank I didn't bought it because it was too big to fit on my desk and I don't know if I will buy an other Epson because they drivers are bad on my Debian. I should try to upgrade them. HP is pretty terrible but the Linux drivers are impressive.

I have had great luck with Brother drivers on all the linux machines I've ever tried to use them with, so I would consider that a good option as well.

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

#83

Post by zwieback »

makecheck wrote: post #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…

I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models:

- disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer

- permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challenge is to make sure the printhead doesn't get ruined before the printer gets replaced. Third party ink can be a contributing factor to printhead health

We now also have an ink-subscription model where you pay at some anticipated level of ink use and you get a replacement cartridge when we think you need it.

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

#84

Post by branchless »

untothebreach wrote: post #82
icefo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epson did it: http://www.epson.com/ecotank I didn't bought it because it was too big to fit on my desk and I don't know if I will buy an other Epson because they drivers are bad on my Debian. I should try to upgrade them. HP is pretty terrible but the Linux drivers are impressive.

I have had great luck with Brother drivers on all the linux machines I've ever tried to use them with, so I would consider that a good option as well.

Agreed, run 100% linux with a brother printer, works great. Setting it up was very simple.

I didn't consider buying HP for a second not because of their drivers but because I have an association of HP producing total garbage.

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

#85

Post by 3chelon »

trcollinson wrote: post #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 rev…

I don't think the argument is a technical one. Most folks on HN probably have some appreciation of the immense vertical engineering investments that have made printer technology so good. I for one am always quite astounded by the engineering.

The argument is a commercial one. You're probably aware of the old "most expensive liquid on earth" list, that printer ink is, gram for gram, up there with human blood, Chanel No. 5, LSD and certain venoms.

The point is that most people think that is insane, and that it is a business model that is skewed so that printer companies extract money from you based on how much you use the printer ("printing as a service") rather than the cost of the hardware. Imagine if Apple or Intel started charging customers per CPU cycle they used?

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

#86

Post by threepipeproblm »

trcollinson wrote: post #75
chefandy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cheape…

Now now, let's not get into poor arguments and logical fallacies. First off, read the rest of my comment, there is more to it. Second, you pose an interesting question. I am assuming this isn't what you did, but let's pretend for a moment that it really is what you did. Let's also assume that HP printers let you use your cheaper ink. Again, you start printing things with your cheaper ink and suddenly your papers are…

>> 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?

It makes my perspective that HP thinks its customers very stupid even stronger... since your comment implies that they charge dramatically more for their on-brand inks than for off-brand inks without adding any extra value.

Apparently you think that HP sells ink at roughly the same price as gold (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-t...) not because of anti-consumer practices, but because they are trying to protect consumers.

And when they do sell it at a lower rate, under a different name, it's to protect the consumers who are too stupid to buy HP's good on-brand ink from ruining their printers. How noble.

You and HP seem to think that, although cars with tens of thousands of components can somehow continue to run even when consumers are stupid enough to buy aftermarket parts, that printer consumers are too stupid to make a decision about 1 part -- even with the aid of state-of-the art ratings systems that allow them to instantly share any problems with the buying community.

Incidentally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy or say they have a "poor argument" without bothering to point why, is just a form of name calling directed at the (actual) argument rather than the person. It's a non-argument.

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

#87

Post by RankingMember »

Agustus wrote: 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.

My Brother laser printer gave a "low toner" warning and refused to print. A piece of electric tape over the sensor and I've been printing for literally years since. Whether the sensor is intentionally set to go off way too early or it's a technical problem, it felt pretty slimy and feels ever-slimier as years go by and I'm still printing without issue.

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

#88

Post by kijin »

vc4devil wrote: post #50
3chelon wrote: 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…

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…

Someone I know recently bought an HP DeskJet GT 5820, which has a "bladder" built into it. The package included 4 full bottles of ink, ~60cc for each color. That's enough ink to print thousands of pages, and I don't think the printer even has any way to detect whether it's been refilled with genuine HP ink. You just open the top and squeeze ink into one of the four color-coded tanks. The whole package, including more than half a pint of ink, came in at around $200.

But it's Asia here, so I don't know if the same model is available in the States. Maybe HP will sue you if you try to import it, like what happened to that Asian kid who tried to import cheap textbooks.

Meanwhile, my HP LaserJet 1022n has been going strong for 10 years now, and 4 of those years have been with $10 recycled toner cartridges from a local seller. I'm not sure whether HP even has the ability to brick my printer if they knew what I was doing, because I haven't seen a driver update for ages, let alone a firmware update.

So yeah, maybe HP does crappy things only in countries where they can legally get away with it. Stop letting them get away with it.

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

#89

Post by logfromblammo »

trcollinson wrote: post #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 rev…

> 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!

This is largely because other printers exist that can make acceptable prints on any glossy paper, using a knock-off or modded cartridge, with any ink bought from eBay. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Also, in my scenario, Grandparent is too technically inclined, takes all the photos, color-corrects all of them in Lightroom, and makes the prints on acid-free paper, using an inkjet that was custom-modded to have huge, refillable external reservoirs of archival-quality pigments before Epson EcoTank was even a thing. He guarantees color stability for 100 years. His cost per print is less than using an HP printer with HP ink cartridges. And some of his art photos are better than Ansel Adams prints, in my opinion.

For the rest of us, who take crap photos, we just go online to upload, print, and ship from a photo printing business--like Shutterfly, to name just one.

Don't coddle your parents. Drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and make them administer the family photo-sharing web page, so their brains won't rot in retirement, and so Facebook won't get their meathooks into everybody. If you aren't willing to make photo printing into a full-blown hobby and do it properly, with a decent printer, you are far better off just paying a professional to do it for you, with a proper industrial photo printer. Get yourself a monochrome laser printer with a refillable toner cartridge, or the toner cartridge separate from the drum, so you can print your coupons and boarding passes and tabletop RPG character sheets, or whatever, and let HP color inkjets vanish into the hell of their own making.

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

#90

Post by anexprogrammer »

makecheck wrote: post #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…

It's a facet of current business. They're ALL trying to give us subscriptions for everything. The "subscription" created by the Gillette safety razor wasn't outrageously priced or terribly wasteful compared to modern blades, and was a fairly good idea over cut-throat razors.

Modern product (as opposed to service) subscriptions exist to extract more cash from the consumer rather than a real tangible benefit (I don't count the marketing benefit). Printer ink (especially HP as the ink cartridge usually contains the print head too), coffee pods (complete with DRM!), air fresheners (at least one brand has DRM here too), sealed laptop and phone batteries and dozens of others are designed to get lock in and more sales/profit. Other industries and products are adopting the same model.

Ties in well with the materials used in consumer products to ensure they need periodic replacement. eg 60s Hoovers were rubbish, but could easily last 50 years, current Hoovers are far better vacuums thanks to Dyson, but are near (or past) end of life by 5 years as the plastic is disintigrating. They're often real terms cheaper, but now objectively too cheap, and there's no better made alternative offered. Even premium brands are now "cheap".

It's a profligate waste of money, packaging and environment. If a product isn't under this model it's easy to get the feeling it's only because they haven't figured out how to get away with it yet.

I'd prefer a saner balance on most of these things.

Post reply on HN