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

261–270 of 461 posts

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

#261

Post by quitit »

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.

Thanks for clarifying because that’s the impression i got from the headline too - while the practice is pretty bad, from the comments in here I suspect many others also had the same interpretation.

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

#262

Post by injidup »

htss2013 wrote: post #237
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…

Why would you assume the market efficiently adjusts for things like fines? Have you seen the stock market lately? There is at best a loose correlation between business reality and stock prices. Why would there be a 1 to 1 relationship between the price of stocks and reality, when most investing is blind passive investing that ignores reality by design?

If you are sure stocks are over or under priced then go mortgage your house and trade your financial security against the market and win.

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

#263

Post by mcv »

denton-scratch wrote: post #153
sgc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I learned to hate HP inkjets. I decided never to buy HP again. When I eventually gave up on inkjets altogether, I bought a Samsung laser. It didn't cost much more than an inkjet, toner lasts for ages, doesn't dry up, and it works fine. But as soon as I googled the support pages, it turned out Samsung's printer division had been acquired by HP, the website was impossible to navigate, and there wasn't any documentation…

Same here. I would never ever buy anything from HP, but now my Samsung printer gets its support from HP. I feel betrayed.

And I don't know if it's related, but my Samsung wireless network printer does not print from the network anymore.

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

#264

Post by ryao »

detrites wrote: post #79
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…

While I generally agree, there's something more immediate. All of us having this view can refuse to ever buy or even use HP products, and explain to anyone and everyone at every opportunity exactly why this is. Boycotts can be immensely powerful, and strike fear into the hearts of those who would exploit us. Personally, I will never buy an HP product again. Absolute, permanent blacklist. It's simply way too disgustin…

How about switching to laser printers from brands that do not play these shenanigans? As far as I know, the only one that does not do it is Canon, which has the same security chips, but lets you opt into disabling third party cartridge support.

Also, of interest, is that HP and Canon printers can use the same toner cartridges:

https://www.shop.xerox.com/supplies-accessories?brand=6346

For the most part, HP does not make its own printers anymore and just sells rebadged printers running their own firmware. It would not surprise me if the ink for HP Smart Tank printers is identical to the ink for Canon Mega Tank printers.

They reportedly are selling some models using technology that they obtained from Samsung, but aside from that, very little of what they sell they actually make. They are basically a middle man.

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

#265

Post by ranting-moth »

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.

Not quite. They're disabling printers today that were functional yesterday.

There's no HP cartridge to put back in, unless I go and buy one.

The printer is disabled until I give HP money. I call that extortion.

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

#266

Post by quitit »

pythonguython wrote: post #239
pessimizer wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the verb "disable" carries connotations of permanence No it doesn't. I can disable the safety catch or disable the alarm just fine without breaking them.

Before reading the article, I interpreted the headline to mean a permanent disabling. Like disabling a tank. Or a disabled person. Merriam-Webster may agree with you, but I felt the wording was misleading

Actually your interpretation of “Permanent disabling” is the grammatically correct interpretation here, because “if” is used. To indicate concurrent behaviour we need to see a sentence using one of these: when, while, or whilst.

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

#267

Post by znpy »

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…

If you don’t want to be held accountable you shouldn’t be ceo at all, in my opinion.

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

#268

Post by throw7 »

"Using a non AT&T phone is not allowed in order to maintain the integrity of our phone system and to protect our intellectual property."

I was looking at printers a year or two ago and noticed that HP's were cheaper, but it was clear from the packaging they were selling "internet" connected printers & ink subscriptions. Those were immediate red flags to me.

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

#269

Post by quitit »

Kiro wrote: post #215
einpoklum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

These people can’t separate an idea from a side. They’re incapable of holding useful debate because all thoughts must be categorised as “us” or “the enemy”. It provides no route for correcting ourselves and no tolerance for enhancing our arguments.
Post reply on HN