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

11–20 of 461 posts

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

#11

Post by cubefox »

This issue is discussed for over 20 years now, it baffles me that there is apparently still no established solution.

By the way, Apple forcing users to install apps only via its 30% fee AppStore has provoked far less outrage. Probably because people are not directly aware of the Apple premium, in contrast to the HP premium.

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

#12

Post by mcny »

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 written orders.

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

#14

Post by kayson »

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.

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

#15

Post by perihelions »

WalterBright wrote: post #2

Selling something, and then remotely disabling it without the purchaser's knowledge or consent, sounds like vandalism to me.

Sounds like a CFAA felony (unauthorized access) and I couldn't cogently be able to explain why it's not.

(Because of a hidden clause in the ToS? Can you hide "we'll install ransomware on your PC" in a software ToS and enforce that, too? What's the very fine distinction between "we'll remotely disable your printer until you pay for exclusive, cryptographically-signed ink", and "we'll remotely encrypt your files and demand payments for the key?")

(It's not a particularly new idea, to extort someone under the pretense of selling them a useful service (exclusive ink). That's just "protection racket" — I think?)

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

#18

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

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…

Prison time? For bricking an $80 printer unless you use specific parts? I don't think so. Let's try to stay on planet earth here..

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

#19

Post by ehPReth »

nubinetwork wrote: post #10
seized wrote: post #6

Time to get a Brother.

Apparently they aren't all that great either... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131

Can confirm they've started chipping toner carts now :/. I have two Brother printers, one that takes TN-450s (no chip, can be reset via button sequence) and one that takes TN-760s (chip, no button sequence reset to say the cartridge is full). Both can be set to 'continue printing' when the cartridge is 'empty', though*.

* Sometimes it "forgets" this setting, unsure the conditions to trigger that, but I imagine the retention sloppiness of this setting versus all the other ones it remembers (admin password, etc) is not an accident.

Post reply on HN