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

141–150 of 461 posts

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

#141

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

boycott-israel wrote: post #107
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…

This is a surprisingly naive thing to say in the era of a CEO having a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder-value over the short-term / their tenure (whichever is shorter)

There is no fiduciary duty to maximising shareholder value.

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

#143

Post by DanHulton »

amluto wrote: post #111
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…

If you can run a successful business by selling $100 objects that cost $20 each to make and result in an average of $90 of fines per sale, and make it up by mistreating your workers, I applaud you.

Mistreatment happens in a variety of ways, some of them, yes, financial. These can be, but are not limited to:

- Layoffs - Demotion - Canceling of raises - Canceling of promotions - Reduction in perks and other business benefits - etc

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

#144

Post by joelwilliamson »

boycott-israel wrote: post #107
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…

This is a surprisingly naive thing to say in the era of a CEO having a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder-value over the short-term / their tenure (whichever is shorter)

Can you give an example of a time when a CEO or board of directors lost a suit for taking the morally upright option instead of trying to maximize share value? I often hear people talking about this, but it's always generalities rather than specific occurrences.

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

#146

Post by jorvi »

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…

Pretty much. Yesterday I wanted to grab some Fanta for in the park.

A 0.33L can would’ve been too little, but a 1L bottle too much, and a 1.5L bottle far too much. 0.50L was the perfect size.

The pricing?

0.33L - €0.66 (€2.00 per L)

0.50L - €1.48 (€2.96 per L)

1.00L - €1.93 (€1.93 per L)

1.50L - €2.09 (€1.39 per L)

Initially this made me angry, as it is very clear they figured out that the 0.5L bottle is the most convenient size, and put a huge premium on that, as people that need that size (for say, in a backpack) will pay it for lack of alternative. In other words, the price the market will bear.

But then I reminded myself, modern companies will always try to give you the least amount of value for the highest price the market will bear.

This is also why you should never feel bad if you can get one over on a company. Pricing error that gets you expensive shoes for €1? Screw ‘em. Contractual obligation that effectively gives you lifetime for €1? Screw ‘em. They’ll do the same to you whenever they can.

I wish businesses believed in being synergistic with their customers and nurturing loyalty, but alas. Not the times we live in.

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

#147

Post by userbinator »

wongarsu wrote: post #58
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.

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.

Lasers printers that use cartridges have similar DRM.

and won't dry out or get used up in cleaning cycles

On the other hand, if you live in a humid climate, toner can clump. This may explain the popularity of inkjets in Southeast Asia.

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

#148

Post by bscphil »

sowbug wrote: post #129
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.

By that definition of "disable", HP is disabling their customers' printers regardless of whether they use ink cartridges from another manufacturer. It's clear that that is not the intended sense, however, because the headline says "if they use...".

If that meaning was intended, the headline should read "HP disables the use of third-party ink cartridges on their customers' printers with a firmware update", or something like that.

I agree with OP that as written the headline is misleading.

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

#149

Post by layer8 »

boycott-israel wrote: post #107
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…

This is a surprisingly naive thing to say in the era of a CEO having a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder-value over the short-term / their tenure (whichever is shorter)

This is false and a misconception, see e.g. https://medium.com/bull-market/new-york-times-reporters-perp....

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

#150

Post by Bran_son »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #132
Bran_son wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.

Do your part and say no. Unlike the EU, we won’t make that illegal.

> Do your part and say no.

I'll do my part and vote to make it illegal, and not reduce myself to a mere consumer. Just like companies don't, and lobby for restrictive patent laws. What happens when one side limits itself to just (individual) consumer choices, while the other uses all political and organizational means available to gain an advantage? In other words, if two players play a game, and one of them limits themselves to only a small subset of moves, while the other uses all, which player will win?

> make that illegal.

Oh no, that's just consent between individuals. People collectively place terms you agree to by continuing to conduct business in that country. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere - they can run their countries how they like. You're not saying organizing into companies is legitimate, but organizing into countries isn't, are you?

Post reply on HN