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

381–390 of 461 posts

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

#381

Post by albert_e »

einpoklum wrote: post #104
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.

I use a Brother multi-function (MFC-L2710DW). > And their drivers aren't user hostile? They offer a closed-source Linux and you need to download an installer from them (an i386 binary, which also works on i686 and x86_64); so, not great. The driver is mostly-reliable, although every once in a while it does kind of give out on you and printing fails, possibly until a restart. I suppose on Windows it's better. > really…

if you open the printer's IP address in your PC browser ..you get a webpage with a lot of settings for the printer.

I recently found that there is a setting in printer admin page called "Replace Toner".

By default the printer is set to STOP printing as soon as "Toner Low" status is reached.

But we can set it to "Continue" so that it continues printing with low toner instead of immediately replacing it.

Mine has been printing fine since last 1 year after this. FYI ... I print like 10 pages in a busy month.

It just gives me "Low Toner" / "Replace Toner" warning each time and still prints just fine.

And this cartridge is a cheap $15 toner refill i had bought off Amazon 2-3 years ago.

printer : Brother DCP L2540-DW bought 8 years ago for $100.

other than occassional connectivity issues like once a year that required reinstalling printer drivers on Win 10 ... I have been super happy.

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

#382

Post by makeitdouble »

ryao wrote: post #364
makeitdouble wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been asked what printer to buy ? I have family members ask to _fix_ their printers, never had one actually taking advice before buying one nor follow advice. And the reason is simple: - Google has a tremendous positive brand image in most people's mind, Brother means nothing outside of the elderly generation. - Printers are seen as a commodity and get thrown at people for 30 bucks at the supermarket. Th…

What are you thoughts about Canon? I just brought one recently. It has an option for me to opt into disabling support for third party toner cartridges. You read that correctly. It lets you use third party toner cartridges by default and if I do not want to be able to use them, I can opt into disabling them. On the other hand, Brother prevents cartridges from being reused more than once, which likely kills the market…

That seems nice. I never tried Canon, but I'm glad they present some competition/alternatives to Brother and Xerox etc.

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

#383

Post by anonymouskimmer »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #176
oxfordmale wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop buying HP printers. If you bought and it is still under warranty, ask for a full refund. You likely won't get it, but make sure HP waste as much time as possible dealing with this In the UK it is even worth considering to take this to the small claims court. Of course seek legal advice first. The only way HP gets away with this, because people just accept this kind of behaviour.

> The only way HP gets away with this, because people just accept this kind of behaviour please name a situation in the past 50 years where a conpany went under or lost at least 10% of their revenue from'peiple not accepting' this behaviour

https://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/on_guard/three-bus...

Apparently, US Airways.

> Before US Airways was purchased by America West in 2005, the airline slashed its customer service budget, and outsourced many of those functions. As a result, the company mishandled or failed to address numerous complaints, angering customers to the point that no amount of cost-cutting could make up for the fact that passengers didn't want to do business with with the airline, eventually forcing it to file bankruptcy.

While brick-and-mortar stores have faced a lot of headwinds, and mismanagement is not always at the expense of the consumer, various failures have ultimately been attributed to consumers just not accepting it anymore.

https://www.marketingcharts.com/customer-centric/customer-ex...

> A poor customer experience has its consequences. Across all industries, an average of 45% of consumers cut their spending with companies after having a bad experience. The Fast Food industry is more likely than average to either see consumers decrease spending (42%) or completely stop spending (25%).

Sears and Kmart's failures have been blamed on decades of mismanagement driving away customers. https://www.wsj.com/articles/edward-lamperts-non-strategy-to...

> In pushing for a better return on investment that never materialized, Mr. Lampert lost sight of the most important player in retail: The customer.

> “When someone pulls up to a Kmart or Sears they don’t see ROI,” Mr. Cohen said. “They see light bulbs that are burnt out, potholes in the parking lot and a front door that looks like it was hit with a sledge hammer.”

Sure, any one thing rarely kills a company or even product line unless it's a true showstopper. But at least in part, this is because when customers let a company know that they aren't happy, the company listens.

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

#384

Post by LorenPechtel »

screwturner68 wrote: post #339
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…

The issue is the fine is paid by the company and not the people who actually did the crime. As a result, the CEO, the board and the other players will all get big fat bonuses and the company will take a hit. When the company takes a hit one thing happens the people at the bottom of the chain get fired, not the decision makers, not the people who pushed this policy but some fucking engineer that just had his first kid…

The CEO will pay attention to problems that cost them money.

A lot of corporate bad behavior would be fairly easy to stop by making it a cost rather than a benefit. Things like an improper denial, you owe 2x the amount. Late payment, you owe say +20% plus a high interest rate on the delay. Fairly routine things you have a clock that's tolled while the other party is actually responding to requests for information, not transit time. (From when they receive it to when they respond. Thus they'll do everything electronic unless original signatures are required.) Clock runs out, that's considered an approval.

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

#385

Post by LorenPechtel »

hedora wrote: post #300
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…

The fine would have to be akin to a corporate death penalty, so that the CEO would never work again. Ideally, it would also pierce the veil of limited liability, so they’d be stuck in court for the next few decades. For this case, computing back: 94M printers are sold per year. HP’s market cap is $29 billion. So, fine them $1000 per printer they sold that has any sort of anti-third-party ink mechanism, payable direct…

Nah. I wouldn't fine them for the printers. I would fine them the retail cost of all ink sold while the block is in place, paid to the consumers who bought it. (Basically a 100% rebate, simply submit your receipt. Make that the standard penalty for DRM-locking supplies.)

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

#386

Post by jiggawatts »

Zak wrote: post #335
jiggawatts wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait... what!? How can that possibly be legal?

It's legal to buy insurance covering civil liability for almost anything other than criminal acts. The price and availability of such insurance tends to vary in proportion to the risk, and policies often have specific exclusions to discourage risky behaviors. Directors and officers insurance is very common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_and_officers_liabili...

Claim: “We deserve this compensation because we take the big risks.”

Reality: “Our insurance takes care of practically all personal risk.”

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

#387

Post by LorenPechtel »

ryao wrote: post #264
detrites wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

AFIAK Brother doesn't play that game. At this point the only printer I have that isn't Brother is an industrial label printer that I need for work--and it's supplies (labels and thermal ribbon) have no electrical contacts at all.

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

#388

Post by anonymouskimmer »

underwater wrote: post #348
detrites wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's apply the same logic to people then. "John scammed his neighbour of his life savings, we don't need to lock him up because lots of people will refuse to associate with him or supply him with goods and services." Making loss of business or minor fines the only mechanism for correcting behaviour, means that the leaders can view antisocial and unethical behaviour as a cost benefit tradeoff. And the lack of persona…

Crimes of moral turpitude (e.g. fraud), and even some lesser civil acts, are sometimes punished by denying the convicted person the right to have an executive job for a period of years.

And various forms of shunning have been codified into laws for a long time, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

But yes, I agree, the codification and conviction is better than non-governmental individual or group action.

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

#389

Post by silisili »

hedora wrote: post #300
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…

The fine would have to be akin to a corporate death penalty, so that the CEO would never work again. Ideally, it would also pierce the veil of limited liability, so they’d be stuck in court for the next few decades. For this case, computing back: 94M printers are sold per year. HP’s market cap is $29 billion. So, fine them $1000 per printer they sold that has any sort of anti-third-party ink mechanism, payable direct…

That's pretty reasonable. I was thinking full refund for price paid, plus sending someone to dispose of it properly. It's less to me about punishing them, and more about being able to retroactively vote with my wallet.

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

#390

Post by twangist »

gameman144 wrote: post #51
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…

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…

> We don't need to put CEOs in prison for making consumer-hostile decisions, we just need to also make those decisions bad business.

Maybe we don't need to, but we should.

Post reply on HN