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

HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 461 posts

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#211

Post by kerkeslager »

crazygringo wrote: post #198
kerkeslager wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No they don't, they get passed on to shareholders. The market cap of the company decreases by the amount of the fine (plus any predicted future effect of the lost money) and the stock price goes down to reflect that. Ehh, if they have to, but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders. Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Are you arguing that we…

> but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders. But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts the market cap, done. > Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-sto…

> But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts the market cap, done.

Not directly, but surely I don't need to explain to you what effect cutting costs typically has on share price?

> Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses.

Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. Why is this a desirable outcome? What is the problem with holding human beings responsible for their own actions?

I don't give a fuck about the foundation of joint-stock corporations. If the foundations of joint-stock corporations result in sociopaths profiting off harming people with no consequences, the foundations of joint-stock corporations need to change or be discarded completely.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#212

Post by golem14 »

cubefox wrote: post #45
golem14 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are less upset because Apple does not brick the phone when the user downloads an app they don't like. (they might in the future, but not today).

HP doesn't brick the printers either, it just doesn't print with third party cartridges.

That's a fair-ish point, but in practical terms, the printer is bricked until I pay up, whereas the phone is basically working with all free apps and web apps, which for many people is good enough.

So it's a significant difference.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#214

Post by mhb »

ROTMetro wrote: post #137
mcny wrote: post #12

The CEO and the board must serve prison time for things like this. No measure less than prison for the CEO and all board members is enough to curtail this because it just becomes the cost of doing business. No, you can’t say it wasn’t your decision. If you want to not be held accountable for the work your employees, contractors, and agents do on your behalf, you should have to prove they acted against your express wr…

As someone here came up with, as punishment instead of fines the government should be granted X percentage non-dilutable ownership of the company. Mess up once, you now have to deal with the government owning 5% or more. This punishes the shareholders/owners in a real way that fines don't. If the business continues to mess up the government would acquires more ownership until it becomes majority owner and can complet…

The government takes money for public education from me and doesn't let me swap cartridges (i.e., spend that money on a less crappy school that it doesn't run). So not looking forward to your plan.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#215

Post by Kiro »

einpoklum wrote: post #95
crazygringo wrote: post #69

I just want to be clear, because this headline is borderline clickbait. HP is not bricking the printers. The printers will continue to work if you put the HP cartridges back in. I'm not condoning HP at all , not in a million years. But the verb "disable" carries connotations of permanence, so it seems like a disingenuous word choice at best, if it's not outright clickbait. Just so people aren't confused here.

> HP is not bricking the printers. The printers will continue to work if you put the HP cartridges back in. That's semi-bricking the printers. > I'm not condoning HP at all, not in a million years. You're semi-condoning them.

> You're semi-condoning them.

It's this mentality that makes internet discussions so polarized. If you allow the slightest nuance or point out that something is factually incorrect, and it happens to go against the prevailing narrative, you're accused of being a shill.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#216

Post by throwaway81523 »

kayson wrote: post #14

It seems like there is enough competition in the printer market that this wouldn't be a thing. Are the margins so thin that all manufacturers depend on ink sales? Otherwise I don't understand why one wouldn't make universal ink compatibility a major selling point and force everyone to follow suit.

> competition

Oh you sweet summer child. Relevant cartoon, ignoring caption: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U-39iprM4Cs/SfZWFzmSQ-I/AAAAAAAAA...

They ALL do it.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#217

Post by nimbius »

mcny wrote: post #12

The CEO and the board must serve prison time for things like this. No measure less than prison for the CEO and all board members is enough to curtail this because it just becomes the cost of doing business. No, you can’t say it wasn’t your decision. If you want to not be held accountable for the work your employees, contractors, and agents do on your behalf, you should have to prove they acted against your express wr…

Say what you will about Carly fiorinas leadership strategy but she certainly set a record for how fast you can pedal an american institution into the ground.

If it weren't for government contracts and Gartner quadrant payola I don't think HP would even exist.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#218

Post by jbaber »

sgc wrote: post #64
wongarsu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or buy a laser printer. They cost a bit more upfront, but a single toner cartridge lasts ages (and won't dry out or get used up in cleaning cycles), the printers are generally much more robust and longer lasting, and because laser printing isn't as patent-encumbered there's more actual competition and less outright user-hostile behavior.

I use a Brother laser with non-oem cartridge. That is what Brother is known for.

I buy authentic Brother toner cartridges out of gratitude. I was so happy after years of HP's bad treatment.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#219

Post by Bran_son »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #184
Bran_son wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company consented to have its contracts limited by continuing to do business in the EU.

As did the gays consent to not marrying, or does “you consent if we voted for it” only apply when you like the vote?

It applies always. But I don't see contractual consent as the highest moral virtue.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#220

Post by crazygringo »

kerkeslager wrote: post #211
crazygringo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders. But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts the market cap, done. > Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-sto…

> But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts the market cap, done. Not directly, but surely I don't need to explain to you what effect cutting costs typically has on share price? > Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-stock corporations, that shareholders get the…

> surely I don't need to explain to you what effect laying off a bunch of workers might have on share price?

Surely you do, because sometimes the stock goes up if the workers weren't needed in the first place, sometimes it goes down because it shows the company is flailing, and sometimes it does nothing because it's business as usual.

You're operating under an illusion that execs have control over how the market will respond.

> Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question.

And I'm missing the part where anything I wrote gave you the excuse to be rude. Please be civil, this is HN.

Post reply on HN