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

171–177 of 177 posts

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

#171

Post by cuoverhere »

zwieback wrote: post #110
ryao wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a third model? Customer replaceable print heads with physically separate customer replaceable and optionally refillable ink tanks of various capacities. Why must such things be mutually exclusive? That said, I switched to a laser printer from Samsung for any printing that I still do. I had a HP photosmart printer for photo prints, but at the volume of a photo a year, it is cheaper to have the photo printed…

We have that in the plotter space and had it for a while in the home space as well. Not sure why we switched away from that model although I'm sure economics were involved. It also goes toward what the other commenter says - many of us would prefer a longer-life printer but the reality is that the mass-market prefers low initial prices and it's hard to put replaceable printheads with reliable plumbing into a low-end…

> "it's hard to put replaceable printheads with reliable plumbing into a low-end mechanism"

Isn't that exactly what HP is doing now when they sell a cheap printer with replaceable cartridges that contain ink and a print head? Are you saying the "plumbing" is the difficult part?

I suspect "economics" in this case means they weren't making huge margins on ink cartridges.

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

#172

Post by lightedman »

cmurf wrote: post #92
lightedman wrote: post #21

HP can't make amends. They simply need to be sued for anti-competitive practices and violations of the Magnusson-Moss anti-tying provisions.

I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer. I'm pretty sure Magnusson-Moss says you can't void warranties, in effect it's not legal to shift liability or burden proof, to disadvantage the consumer. In the case of printers, the warranty is not voided by using 3rd party ink, what they've basically done…

"I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer."

Why do you think I said they need to be sued for such a thing? Specifically because nobody has, yet. I know what HP does Re: their product; I've worked for them in the laptop repair department handling the water damage claims. Let me tell you, they did EVERYTHING they could to get out of honoring warranty and paid-for user damage warranty extensions. I'll guarantee you the second someone tries to return the printer for being defective and HP discovers that they used a 3rd-party cartridge, they'll try to get out of the warranty claim. The Magnusson-Moss act specifically states "Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the warranty cannot be conditioned to a specific brand of parts, services or vehicle modifications unless those parts or services are provided free of charge." HP charges for the ink carts. I would bet a good attorney would make this a simple case.

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

#173

Post by wvenable »

brokenmachine wrote: post #164
wvenable wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a color laser printer for a few hundred bucks and despite almost never having to print anything it's one of the better purchases I've made. It just works. It's not wasteful. And it won't dry out from lack of use. I figure I'll break even over buying ink-jet printers and cartridges in another year or so. Even if everything costs more in short term, it's so much less wasteful.

I tried to do the same thing but bought a cheap It's only a year old and now it won't suck up the paper properly. I have to literally stick my hands into it and feed the paper in page-by-page. The thing has successfully printed less than 20 pages and it's already not working. It's 2016 and Samsung can't make a rubber roller that works. And I don't want to buy another just to have the same thing happen.

I spent about $400 -- I figure a sub $100 laser printer is much the same thing as buying a cheap inkjet.

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

#174

Post by brokenmachine »

wvenable wrote: post #173
brokenmachine wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to do the same thing but bought a cheap It's only a year old and now it won't suck up the paper properly. I have to literally stick my hands into it and feed the paper in page-by-page. The thing has successfully printed less than 20 pages and it's already not working. It's 2016 and Samsung can't make a rubber roller that works. And I don't want to buy another just to have the same thing happen.

I spent about $400 -- I figure a sub $100 laser printer is much the same thing as buying a cheap inkjet.

I wrongfully assumed that an appliance manufactured and sold to perform a single task would be able to perform that task.

That was a mistake.

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

#175

Post by wvenable »

brokenmachine wrote: post #174
wvenable wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent about $400 -- I figure a sub $100 laser printer is much the same thing as buying a cheap inkjet.

I wrongfully assumed that an appliance manufactured and sold to perform a single task would be able to perform that task. That was a mistake.

I think this whole thread is about how that's a mistake! You get what you pay for and cheap printers are crap; they're so cheap they're virtually useless.

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

#176

Post by limeyx »

zwieback wrote: post #135
Nursie wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently a third and more sensible way is possible in the Indian market though, with the HP DeskJet GT printers, which have refillable reservoir tanks (not even disposable!) Yet somewhow they aren't offered for sale in Europe? Instead we get the subscription model, which involves yet more data (printer usage, ink levels) disappearing off to someone else's servers.

Didn't even know about that model, thanks for pointing it out. Clearly we're trying out different business models in different markets.

Or maybe people in India wont put up with the sort of crap we somehow do here in the US

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

#177

Post by rihac »

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.

rihac.com.au - if you already have a printer we have ink tanks CISS systems that fit to most models. We are also annoyed about HP's little trick but its not the first time a printer manufacturer has tried something like this. there are always little obstacles that we have to tackle. With a decade of experience our tech team know all the tricks to get around these barriers.
Post reply on HN