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

121–130 of 461 posts

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

#121

Post by galleywest200 »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #35

Did you know Brother makes really good printers that are inexpensive and live a long, happy, life? And their drivers aren't user hostile? This is one of those really good "vote with your wallets" situations.

Brother is great unless you need to configure it to fax over VoIP. I recall horror stories from my technical support days. Had to walk users, over the phone, through navigating to the settings and then changing a binary (literally) value.

> Ok now it says 01101101 and I need you to change it to 10001111.

Something to that effect. Ew.

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

#122

Post by pavel_lishin »

crazygringo wrote: post #97
kerkeslager wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate fines just end up being passed on to workers who had nothing to do with the decision. "We had to (lay off 10% of our workforce|cut worker pay by 10%|etc.) because of these unfair fines." Corporations aren't people--they can't make the decision to do unethical things. Yes, I understand the law, I'm saying the law is incorrect. People do unethical things, and people should be held responsible for their action…

> Corporate fines just end up being passed on to workers 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. If the company could get away with paying workers less or decreasing its workforce in order to boost profitability, it already would have. It's no…

In the parlance of an old internet meme, "why not both"?

Also, they _are_ cutting employees. There have been a lot of layoffs recently, and some of them have explicitly stated it'd not because they can't afford those employees.

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

#123

Post by liendolucas »

Doesn't this classify as spyware/malware? Who would think a company would go that far to lock-in customers in such a miserable way? I'm being naive but let's hope others do not get creative and follow these outrageous practices.

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

#124

Post by crazygringo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #119
crazygringo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not send top stockholders to prison while you're at it? And regional managers as well? And the stores that sell the printers too? No, prison makes zero sense. When people agree to a business contract and one side fails to uphold their end of the bargain, the remedy should remain financial. And punitive remedies exist precisely to make sure the "cost of doing business" makes it no longer profitable. And if that's…

It's not as if corporate actors are passive non-participants in the political process, abstaining from lobbying or campaign financing. It's much more economical for corporation to influence legislation/regulation than for voters to build a coalition and then try to leverage it to significantly alter the status quo. Ignoring this reality makes idealistic arguments like yours seem naive at best.

No, there's nothing naive about it at all. I'm not making a specific political endorsement here, but if voters elect candidates like e.g. Elizabeth Warren to Congress then you get much stronger consumer protections, corporate lobbying be damned.

I'm not saying corporate lobbying has zero influence (that would be naive), but if the electorate chooses to care about something, it trumps corporations. This is actually a major finding of academic research on corporate influence and lobbying in politics -- it's mostly effective specifically in areas where voters aren't paying attention and don't care.

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

#125

Post by educaysean »

mcny wrote: post #61
gameman144 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think prison time is even what's needed here, I think these issues would resolve themselves if corporate fines were continually issued, rather than one-off lawsuits. For instance, a standing ruling that if your printer stops being able to print for no reason other than a contract breach, then the hardware is eligible for a refund. We don't need to put CEOs in prison for making consumer-hostile decisions, we j…

I used to think this as well but then I learned of something called a principal-agent problem. I am talking in general, so while fines might work in this exact case, they won’t work in general. The CEO and board supervising the crimes might be long gone and no longer a part of the corporation by the time the law catches up with them and the owners / shareholders are left holding the bag. I understand what I am advoca…

> The CEO and board supervising the crimes might be long gone and no longer a part of the corporation by the time the law catches up with them and the owners / shareholders are left holding the bag.

Did these people continue to maintain the processes and rules enacted by their predecessors? If so they aren't "left holding the bag", they are the remaining beneficiaries of the system. If you are one of the few who have the power to stop something but you don't because you benefit from the status quo, you aren't a victim. You are the perpetrator.

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

#127

Post by WalterBright »

perihelions wrote: post #15
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 de…

For me, when you "purchase" something, it's yours and you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

If a "purchase" comes with "terms of use", it should not be classified as a purchase. It should be clearly labeled as "rent".

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

#128

Post by bequanna »

snvzz wrote: post #116

Where are the Open Source Hardware printers? Literally everybody (except printer makers) hates the printer landscape. All we'd need is to pool money to design a cost-effective open source hardware modular monochrome laser printer with open firmware.

Or buy a Brother printer. They aren’t without sin, but they make quality printers and don’t pull crap like this.

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

#129

Post by sowbug »

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.

Before the firmware update, the printers were able to print with third-party cartridges. HP disabled that ability. Their customers' printers are now disabled.

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

#130

Post by emodendroket »

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…

What criminal law have they violated?
Post reply on HN