HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals(telegraph.co.uk)
telegraph.co.uk
HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/hp-printers-computers-ink-cartridges-rivals/
454 comments
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 just need to also make those decisions bad business.
We don't need to put CEOs in prison for making consumer-hostile decisions, we just need to also make those decisions bad business.
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 actions.
Fining decision-makers might be an acceptable alternative to jail time, as long as the minimum fine is some sort of multiple of profits gained, to prevent criminals from just figuring a slap on the wrist fine into their decision-making math.
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 actions.
Fining decision-makers might be an acceptable alternative to jail time, as long as the minimum fine is some sort of multiple of profits gained, to prevent criminals from just figuring a slap on the wrist fine into their decision-making math.
> 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 not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.
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 not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.
> 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.
Ehh, if they have to, but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders.
Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Are you arguing that we have to fine corporations instead of holding the decision makers responsible? What do you have against people taking responsibility for their own actions?
> 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 not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.
But they couldn't pay workers less or decrease workforce, because they needed those workers to execute the unethical business plan. They weren't waiting for a fine to cut workers, they were waiting for the cash cow to stop producing milk to cut workers who were necessary to keep the cash cow going.
Ehh, if they have to, but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders.
Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Are you arguing that we have to fine corporations instead of holding the decision makers responsible? What do you have against people taking responsibility for their own actions?
> 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 not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.
But they couldn't pay workers less or decrease workforce, because they needed those workers to execute the unethical business plan. They weren't waiting for a fine to cut workers, they were waiting for the cash cow to stop producing milk to cut workers who were necessary to keep the cash cow going.
> 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-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses.
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-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses.
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?
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.
It doesn't really matter that much if he thinks or knows a stock is under or over valued if he also expects that bad valuation to be maintained for any significant length of time.
Stock prices are not rational and there is no consistent way to calculate the value of a company. An expensive media campaign that accomplishes nothing related to their business offerings and may even lose the company significant amounts of money can end up raising a stock price. And you also don't have unlimited time to try and wait out stocks which also have so many other random factors being thrown in over the years.
Stock prices are not rational and there is no consistent way to calculate the value of a company. An expensive media campaign that accomplishes nothing related to their business offerings and may even lose the company significant amounts of money can end up raising a stock price. And you also don't have unlimited time to try and wait out stocks which also have so many other random factors being thrown in over the years.
You can't predict when the market will stop behaving stupidly. Betting against stupid is often considered a bad idea.
Sounds like an idealised view of it. In reality I would think shareholders are ok with any plan the exec/board has to avoid such losses
> 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.
Not directly, but surely I don't need to explain to you what effect cutting costs typically has on share price?
> Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses.
Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. Why is this a desirable outcome? What is the problem with holding human beings responsible for their own actions?
I don't give a fuck about the foundation of joint-stock corporations. If the foundations of joint-stock corporations result in sociopaths profiting off harming people with no consequences, the foundations of joint-stock corporations need to change or be discarded completely.
Not directly, but surely I don't need to explain to you what effect cutting costs typically has on share price?
> Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses.
Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. Why is this a desirable outcome? What is the problem with holding human beings responsible for their own actions?
I don't give a fuck about the foundation of joint-stock corporations. If the foundations of joint-stock corporations result in sociopaths profiting off harming people with no consequences, the foundations of joint-stock corporations need to change or be discarded completely.
> surely I don't need to explain to you what effect laying off a bunch of workers might have on share price?
Surely you do, because sometimes the stock goes up if the workers weren't needed in the first place, sometimes it goes down because it shows the company is flailing, and sometimes it does nothing because it's business as usual.
You're operating under an illusion that execs have control over how the market will respond.
> Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question.
And I'm missing the part where anything I wrote gave you the excuse to be rude. Please be civil, this is HN.
Surely you do, because sometimes the stock goes up if the workers weren't needed in the first place, sometimes it goes down because it shows the company is flailing, and sometimes it does nothing because it's business as usual.
You're operating under an illusion that execs have control over how the market will respond.
> Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question.
And I'm missing the part where anything I wrote gave you the excuse to be rude. Please be civil, this is HN.
laughs in share buybacks
> Ehh, if they have to, but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders.
this is the KEY thing that is always missed.
shareholder happiness level: monitored at all times, a KPI of utmost significance at the most senior levels.
worker/employee happiness level: monitored at the Q{1-4} level at best, a KPI of least significance at all levels.
this is the KEY thing that is always missed.
shareholder happiness level: monitored at all times, a KPI of utmost significance at the most senior levels.
worker/employee happiness level: monitored at the Q{1-4} level at best, a KPI of least significance at all levels.
If the cash cow isn't going then the fines were successful. Plus share prices will drop because the business can no longer do the unethical thing.
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.
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.
Pretty much everyone: Businesses should operate in a free market. Let the market decide! Things shouldn't be regulated by the government if they don't absolutely need to be.
Also pretty much everyone: Wait, the decisions businesses make that affect me absolutely suck!
Also pretty much everyone: Wait, the decisions businesses make that affect me absolutely suck!
Just buy 2 of the 0.33L! You already did the math!
> 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 recently saw a £700 bicycle carbon fork on sale for £70, new, the shop just forgot a zero. I didnt buy it out of feeling bad :(
I recently saw a £700 bicycle carbon fork on sale for £70, new, the shop just forgot a zero. I didnt buy it out of feeling bad :(
I'm guessing a component like that was being sold by a local bike shop or a small chain, not an inhuman multinational corporation. I hope you told somebody about the error rather than just leaving it for the next person to buy.
If a company like Amazon mispriced something that way, I'd gladly buy it.
If a company like Amazon mispriced something that way, I'd gladly buy it.
In the UK at least they can refuse to sell at that price if it is an error. A displayed price is not a contract but an invitation to tender. It only becomes different legally if the low price was a deliberate bait-and-switch thing or similar.
> modern companies will always try to give you the least amount of value for the highest price the market will bear
Modern consumers will always try to pay as little as possible for the highest amount of value they can.
The proper term for this is The Law of Supply and Demand. It's how markets work.
BTW, your anecdote illustrates why making the effort to learn some math while in grade school is worthwhile.
Modern consumers will always try to pay as little as possible for the highest amount of value they can.
The proper term for this is The Law of Supply and Demand. It's how markets work.
BTW, your anecdote illustrates why making the effort to learn some math while in grade school is worthwhile.
Supply and demand presumes that I would have wanted something else than Fanta - since I (and presumably others) did not, Fanta had market power :).
As an aside, the example would be even more dramatic with non-sugar, where the 0.5L bottle is €1.88, but the 1L bottle is €1.95, due to both the price premium of ‘convenient size’ and ‘healthy alternative’ being stacked.
As an aside, the example would be even more dramatic with non-sugar, where the 0.5L bottle is €1.88, but the 1L bottle is €1.95, due to both the price premium of ‘convenient size’ and ‘healthy alternative’ being stacked.
> Supply and demand presumes that I would have wanted something else than Fanta
That's not how S&D works. S&D is in-play even if Fanta had a monopoly. Even if the prices were set by the government. Governments have tried every scheme imaginable to repeal the law of S&D, but they never work.
BTW, I gave up all soda about 15 years ago. It took about a year to finally stop craving it. I no longer have any desire for it.
Besides the health issues, it has saved me a ton of money in aggregate.
That's not how S&D works. S&D is in-play even if Fanta had a monopoly. Even if the prices were set by the government. Governments have tried every scheme imaginable to repeal the law of S&D, but they never work.
BTW, I gave up all soda about 15 years ago. It took about a year to finally stop craving it. I no longer have any desire for it.
Besides the health issues, it has saved me a ton of money in aggregate.
> A firm with market power chooses a point on the demand curve that it faces. It sets a price as a markup over marginal cost and then produces enough to meet demand at that price. A firm with market power does not take the price as given and then determine a quantity to supply. In fact—strictly speaking—there is no such thing as a supply curve when a firm has market power.
Soda for me is a guilty pleasure, like a good barbecue, or a bottle of red wine. But I appreciate the heads-up!
Soda for me is a guilty pleasure, like a good barbecue, or a bottle of red wine. But I appreciate the heads-up!
I enjoy those things, too, but am able to do it in moderation. I had a hard time being moderate with the soda.
> 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.
Purely in theory in a vacuum, yes. In practice, you'll have a very hard time finding examples where that actually happened. At best, the stock takes a momentary dip and next ~week it's back to where it was.
Purely in theory in a vacuum, yes. In practice, you'll have a very hard time finding examples where that actually happened. At best, the stock takes a momentary dip and next ~week it's back to where it was.
Well in reality it's a gradual decrease over time as the fine moves from hypothetical low-probability to actually happening. By the time the fine happens it's often already been "priced in".
But so what if the stock is back up the following week? More things happened over the following week. You're missing the fact that it would have been up even higher if it weren't for the fine. (Alternatively, the stock also might go down even further the following week. But similarly, it wouldn't have gone down as much if not for the fine.)
This is not theory, this is how stocks actually work in the aggregate. If they didn't, you'd be able to make a lot of easy money off the stock market otherwise.
But so what if the stock is back up the following week? More things happened over the following week. You're missing the fact that it would have been up even higher if it weren't for the fine. (Alternatively, the stock also might go down even further the following week. But similarly, it wouldn't have gone down as much if not for the fine.)
This is not theory, this is how stocks actually work in the aggregate. If they didn't, you'd be able to make a lot of easy money off the stock market otherwise.
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.
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.
Because that's not how it works, it isn't both.
Yes HP is laying off employees just like pretty much every other large tech company right now. Which shows you it has nothing to do with fines, and rather everything to do with industry-wide overexpansion during COVID and high interest rates now.
Yes HP is laying off employees just like pretty much every other large tech company right now. Which shows you it has nothing to do with fines, and rather everything to do with industry-wide overexpansion during COVID and high interest rates now.
> Because that's not how it works
Exactly!
I don’t know how to deal with people who talk about the economy in terms of a perfect competition free market where all participants have full knowledge and are all equal in terms of power. If a physicist talked in terms of zero friction or spherical cows, we would laugh them off and never listen to them again. And yet people continue to talk about the economy with these assumptions that make zero friction and spherical cows look like practical applied physics.
Exactly!
I don’t know how to deal with people who talk about the economy in terms of a perfect competition free market where all participants have full knowledge and are all equal in terms of power. If a physicist talked in terms of zero friction or spherical cows, we would laugh them off and never listen to them again. And yet people continue to talk about the economy with these assumptions that make zero friction and spherical cows look like practical applied physics.
I don't know where the requirement of full knowledge became part of the definition of a free market.
Because it isn't true.
Another word for lack of knowledge is "risk".
The amount of risk is factored into the price of everything you buy and sell. For example, a name brand item sells for a higher price than a generic item because the name brand carries with it less risk for the buyer.
Because it isn't true.
Another word for lack of knowledge is "risk".
The amount of risk is factored into the price of everything you buy and sell. For example, a name brand item sells for a higher price than a generic item because the name brand carries with it less risk for the buyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Note that "perfect information" is not part of the definition of it.
Note that "perfect information" is not part of the definition of it.
You will be in shock when you'll see in what terms mathematicians talk about.
They do not get "passed on to the workers." That's not how that works - not how any of that works.
A business needs a certain number of workers for a certain output. Those workers need to be paid a market amount for their skillset, for the amount of output. If the company does not have the funds to pay them - due to fines or competition or any other reason, the company lays off workers and reduces output and revenue - giving those sales to competitors, or goes out of business.
Yes, if the solution to "we broke printers" is to refund every single affected sale, the company will lay off workers, reduce output, and close down if that happens enough. Their competition will increase output to fill the unmet demand, and hire workers.
That literally is the point of the fine, and is a good thing, not a bad thing.
A business needs a certain number of workers for a certain output. Those workers need to be paid a market amount for their skillset, for the amount of output. If the company does not have the funds to pay them - due to fines or competition or any other reason, the company lays off workers and reduces output and revenue - giving those sales to competitors, or goes out of business.
Yes, if the solution to "we broke printers" is to refund every single affected sale, the company will lay off workers, reduce output, and close down if that happens enough. Their competition will increase output to fill the unmet demand, and hire workers.
That literally is the point of the fine, and is a good thing, not a bad thing.
>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."
This is like "if you raise the minimum wage we'll only have to lay people off" which is equally self serving and utterly, completely wrong.
Employees dont pay. Shareholders pay. If they could have fired 1 employee and collected a bit of extra profit they would already have done so.
This is like "if you raise the minimum wage we'll only have to lay people off" which is equally self serving and utterly, completely wrong.
Employees dont pay. Shareholders pay. If they could have fired 1 employee and collected a bit of extra profit they would already have done so.
> If they could have fired 1 employee and collected a bit of extra profit they would already have done so.
But they couldn't pay workers less or decrease workforce, because they needed those workers to execute the unethical business plan. They weren't waiting for a fine to cut workers, they were waiting for the cash cow to stop producing milk to cut workers who were necessary to keep the cash cow going.
But they couldn't pay workers less or decrease workforce, because they needed those workers to execute the unethical business plan. They weren't waiting for a fine to cut workers, they were waiting for the cash cow to stop producing milk to cut workers who were necessary to keep the cash cow going.
That's a completely different argument, and a worse one at that.
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.
Does being Too Big To Fail and getting government bailouts count as successful?
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
- Layoffs - Demotion - Canceling of raises - Canceling of promotions - Reduction in perks and other business benefits - etc
But if they could mistreat their workers they would so anyway independent of the object in question. $100 sale - $20 costs - $90 fine = -$10 per unit. Nobody's going to do that unless having that in people's hands makes them money somehow. (We have seen that with game systems--sell at a loss and make it up on the games.)
[deleted]
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 and thought being and engineer at HP was a great job. The system is setup so that people who screw up never pay but the people who have nothing to do with the problem always pay the bill. If the idiots at the top actually had some accountability I think we'd see a lot different choices being made, but that is just a pipe dream in the world we live in.
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.
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.
The CEO will pay attention to problems that cost them money.
True, but only when the cost is greater than the profit from doing whatever it is you don't want the business to do. From example, if paying a bill late comes with a 20% premium, but not paying it increases profit by 21%, then it's better to pay late.
In the system of modern business it's really hard to see why things happen, so simple rules very rarely work. People are hugely creative when it comes to dreaming up ways around them.
True, but only when the cost is greater than the profit from doing whatever it is you don't want the business to do. From example, if paying a bill late comes with a 20% premium, but not paying it increases profit by 21%, then it's better to pay late.
In the system of modern business it's really hard to see why things happen, so simple rules very rarely work. People are hugely creative when it comes to dreaming up ways around them.
If the bad behavior is anything more than a rare thing then the fine is too low.
It should be piercing fines that director and officers must pay and can’t be covered by the company in any form including D&O insurance.
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 advocating might seem against existing case law about LLC and as I’ve said before I am not a lawyer so it might not be something straightforward to codify but I know it is possible if we have the will and we make it a priority.
I would hope we should have the owners of our economy, the 0.0001% of the population on our side on this matter because upper management is robbing them or they will if we institute reasonably high enough fines instead of prison time.
I understand what I am advocating might seem against existing case law about LLC and as I’ve said before I am not a lawyer so it might not be something straightforward to codify but I know it is possible if we have the will and we make it a priority.
I would hope we should have the owners of our economy, the 0.0001% of the population on our side on this matter because upper management is robbing them or they will if we institute reasonably high enough fines instead of prison time.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I know you said few and I am moving goal posts here a little but it isn’t always the “big guys” who suffer either.
Will you volunteer to tell the retiring teacher or firefighter that they will have to starve because you’d rather punish the ultimate perpetrators rather than hold the actually guilty (the then CEO and the board) accountable to the law?
I know you said few and I am moving goal posts here a little but it isn’t always the “big guys” who suffer either.
Will you volunteer to tell the retiring teacher or firefighter that they will have to starve because you’d rather punish the ultimate perpetrators rather than hold the actually guilty (the then CEO and the board) accountable to the law?
> Will you volunteer to tell the retiring teacher or firefighter that they will have to starve because you’d rather punish the ultimate perpetrators rather than hold the actually guilty (the then CEO and the board) accountable to the law?
I would. And firefighters and teachers are used to getting fucked by everybody anyway. (mom is a teacher, and have several friends who are firefighters).
But in reality, big union funds, invest only a little bit in any one company, so no, some big company loosing some of it market cap, would make little difference to each individual teacher and firefighter.
I would. And firefighters and teachers are used to getting fucked by everybody anyway. (mom is a teacher, and have several friends who are firefighters).
But in reality, big union funds, invest only a little bit in any one company, so no, some big company loosing some of it market cap, would make little difference to each individual teacher and firefighter.
While GDPR is far from perfect those fines made a huge difference. Hefty fines do scare companies.
The most visible difference inside the EU is a significant degradation of the user web browsing experience.
Maybe visible, but as someone who works in EU, behind the screen there is a lot more emphasis on either not collecting data, or being more strict with what you collect and how you collect it.
PII data identifying, documenting it, and periodic review's of that is becoming standard procedure.
I remember when GDPR was announced, where for most projects, there was not anyone who could tell you for any given project, what all data is being collected and stored where.
So GDPR did have positive* effect at least with the part of the market I am familiar with.
* As in positive for people privacy
PII data identifying, documenting it, and periodic review's of that is becoming standard procedure.
I remember when GDPR was announced, where for most projects, there was not anyone who could tell you for any given project, what all data is being collected and stored where.
So GDPR did have positive* effect at least with the part of the market I am familiar with.
* As in positive for people privacy
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 to consumer. (This seems about right to me. It’s less than 10x the retail price of a printer.)
Production of a receipt or a picture of an HP branded printer serial number should be all that is required to obtain the $1000. If they fail to pay in 30 days, individuals can use the mechanism where the sherrif walks into an HP office and takes $1000 worth of stuff on behalf of the claimant.
After 12 months, any unclaimed money gets sent to charity.
As appropriate as that would be, I’d rather see the CEO and execs that approved this stuff go to federal maximum security prison for life than for all the unrelated HP employees to lose their jobs. (Though, arguably, their services would be better used elsewhere.)
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 to consumer. (This seems about right to me. It’s less than 10x the retail price of a printer.)
Production of a receipt or a picture of an HP branded printer serial number should be all that is required to obtain the $1000. If they fail to pay in 30 days, individuals can use the mechanism where the sherrif walks into an HP office and takes $1000 worth of stuff on behalf of the claimant.
After 12 months, any unclaimed money gets sent to charity.
As appropriate as that would be, I’d rather see the CEO and execs that approved this stuff go to federal maximum security prison for life than for all the unrelated HP employees to lose their jobs. (Though, arguably, their services would be better used elsewhere.)
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.)
“So, fine them $1000 per printer they sold that has any sort of anti-third-party ink mechanism, payable direct to consumer. (This seems about right to me. It’s less than 10x the retail price of a printer.)”
Did I read this correct? Do consumer printers cost over $10k where you live?
Did I read this correct? Do consumer printers cost over $10k where you live?
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.
Workers, yes, but mainly consumers. A million dollar fine, if you sell 500,000,000 cartridges (just a guess, but in 2012 I searched and saw they sold 315 million worldwide) means they would have to charge .2 cents per cartridge to pay for the fine. ''
I hardly think that issuing any fine would make them care. Why would the CEO give one little tiny shit about a million dollar fine, or a ten million dollar fine for that matter. They just pass it on to the consumer. And that is only passing on the cost of the fine only to the ink division. They could easily pass on the costs to all departments.
Fines are silly and useless. I guess if they were to have a $500 million fine, that would get the company's attention, but I don't see that ever happening, honestly.
But I think if they put the C-suite and board of directors into jail for 8 years, that would have a major effect on all boards and executives.
And right now, corporations are claiming supply chains and inflation for raising their prices, yet they have the largest profits ever. This can only mean that they are raising their prices but their costs are staying the same or rising very little. All of them should be put in prison - robbing the poor and middle class to put that wealth in the hands of the rich. More siphoning money from the poor and middle class. Put them in prison, I say. Make some example. This is not about price controls, but against holding the US population hostage. Is there collusion? Because that is against the law. That is not controlling prices. Collusion is collusion.
I hardly think that issuing any fine would make them care. Why would the CEO give one little tiny shit about a million dollar fine, or a ten million dollar fine for that matter. They just pass it on to the consumer. And that is only passing on the cost of the fine only to the ink division. They could easily pass on the costs to all departments.
Fines are silly and useless. I guess if they were to have a $500 million fine, that would get the company's attention, but I don't see that ever happening, honestly.
But I think if they put the C-suite and board of directors into jail for 8 years, that would have a major effect on all boards and executives.
And right now, corporations are claiming supply chains and inflation for raising their prices, yet they have the largest profits ever. This can only mean that they are raising their prices but their costs are staying the same or rising very little. All of them should be put in prison - robbing the poor and middle class to put that wealth in the hands of the rich. More siphoning money from the poor and middle class. Put them in prison, I say. Make some example. This is not about price controls, but against holding the US population hostage. Is there collusion? Because that is against the law. That is not controlling prices. Collusion is collusion.
> Fines are silly and useless. I guess if they were to have a $500 million fine, that would get the company's attention, but I don't see that ever happening, honestly.
Fines work great as long as they're sufficient enough to disincentivize the relevant behavior! If you made it so that any printer that you disabled cost more to you than one left enabled, then the business would absolutely change course, no huge single-time fine required.
> But I think if they put the C-suite and board of directors into jail for 8 years, that would have a major effect on all boards and executives.
Agreed, but I think that effect would be extremely detrimental to society (capital punishment for misbehavior also has a big impact, and is pretty clearly not the kind of thing we'd want.)
If there is currently a criminal law that the CEO is breaking, then by all means they should be tried. If we're just trying to end business practices we don't like, though, regulation and monetary disincentives are the way to do that.
Making an example of someone should only be done insofar as they've broken the rules. If we don't like the way they're acting while following the rules, the rules are the things we should change.
Fines work great as long as they're sufficient enough to disincentivize the relevant behavior! If you made it so that any printer that you disabled cost more to you than one left enabled, then the business would absolutely change course, no huge single-time fine required.
> But I think if they put the C-suite and board of directors into jail for 8 years, that would have a major effect on all boards and executives.
Agreed, but I think that effect would be extremely detrimental to society (capital punishment for misbehavior also has a big impact, and is pretty clearly not the kind of thing we'd want.)
If there is currently a criminal law that the CEO is breaking, then by all means they should be tried. If we're just trying to end business practices we don't like, though, regulation and monetary disincentives are the way to do that.
Making an example of someone should only be done insofar as they've broken the rules. If we don't like the way they're acting while following the rules, the rules are the things we should change.
I think you're fundamentally incorrect that a more consistent fine structure could fix the problems we have now.
The basic reason is that the US (and the Western World) has gone through deregulation to re-monopolization, so consumers face monopolies or oligopolies in most major markets and these entities basically make their money by selling their products as "services" in the chunk-size that makes a consume most desperate - IE, Hp will fight forever to sell 100 prints for $30 rather than 10000 prints for $120 and only hard threats can stop them (and we know the shit MS does - if MS could charge an ambulance a fee to keep their heart monitor software from killing them, they would, etc).
The basic reason is that the US (and the Western World) has gone through deregulation to re-monopolization, so consumers face monopolies or oligopolies in most major markets and these entities basically make their money by selling their products as "services" in the chunk-size that makes a consume most desperate - IE, Hp will fight forever to sell 100 prints for $30 rather than 10000 prints for $120 and only hard threats can stop them (and we know the shit MS does - if MS could charge an ambulance a fee to keep their heart monitor software from killing them, they would, etc).
the CEO absolutely needs to face prison for this - they basically destroyed other peoples’ property.
If I start a business as a sole trader and do shit for this, I get prison time.
If a big-time CEO does this, he gets a fay bonus
If a big-time CEO does this, he gets a fay bonus
>destroyed other peoples’ property.
What property was destroyed? The HP printer still works with genuine ink cartridges and the third party ink cartridge will work for printers that don't require genuine HP ink.
What property was destroyed? The HP printer still works with genuine ink cartridges and the third party ink cartridge will work for printers that don't require genuine HP ink.
Kind of a weird world we live in where intellectual property gives someone else legal power over what we may do with our own devices, but conversely our ability to do things with our devices that is within our legal right is not considered our property.
That's not what's happening here. HP doesn't have power over what you can do to your printer. If you want to modify your printer so that it allows for ungenuine ink to be used you are free to do so.
HP modified other peoples' printers without genuine[0] consent to make the printers less valuable. It should probably be illegal for them to do that.
I imagine there isn't an existing criminal law covering that and I'm not in favor of interpreting criminal laws creatively to expand their scope, however I could be convinced to support making a new criminal law to cover this kind of behavior.
[0] No doubt, they have some fine print in a clickwrap agreement giving themselves permission.
I imagine there isn't an existing criminal law covering that and I'm not in favor of interpreting criminal laws creatively to expand their scope, however I could be convinced to support making a new criminal law to cover this kind of behavior.
[0] No doubt, they have some fine print in a clickwrap agreement giving themselves permission.
I'm not sure that will work. The intention here is to move the needle on what's acceptable.
If fines grow/shrink, then people will think "what are ways to get around these fines?" or more commonly "Are these fines larger than the profit I would earn?". Even if fines are increased for now, that's a temporary thing, and not everyone would care.
A CEO doesn't personally care about extra fines costing the company; that can be a "calculated risk". CEOs are very well paid and fines are generally an inconvenience. But these people cannot buy time; threaten to take away years of their life, and see how the underlying value structures change.
If fines grow/shrink, then people will think "what are ways to get around these fines?" or more commonly "Are these fines larger than the profit I would earn?". Even if fines are increased for now, that's a temporary thing, and not everyone would care.
A CEO doesn't personally care about extra fines costing the company; that can be a "calculated risk". CEOs are very well paid and fines are generally an inconvenience. But these people cannot buy time; threaten to take away years of their life, and see how the underlying value structures change.
> 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.
Maybe we don't need to, but we should.
> 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 let's.
Maybe we don't need to, but let's.
No; we need jail.
or just let the free market run it's course.
Doesn't work in cases like this because most people aren't going to do a lot of research on a technical buy - they're intimidated by the task so they go with whatever the salesperson tells them. And the salespeople are paid to tell them whatever brings in the most money.
And how well is that going?
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.
This is a myth that refuses to go away. A business can go in whatever direction it chooses, even if it hurts shareholders, employees, or other stakeholders by doing so. Anything short of directly looting the company coffers by directors is fine in a legal sense. Shareholders can just sell if they lose faith in leadership, or put pressure on the board.
That's not right either, the board and officers have fiduciary duty to act in shareholders' interest and to use reasonable business judgment. Less strict than maximizing profit, but more strict than anything-legal-goes.
This is false and a misconception, see e.g. https://medium.com/bull-market/new-york-times-reporters-perp....
There is no fiduciary duty to maximising shareholder value.
How the heck would you create such a law with no unintended consequences? “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.” So if a low-wage worker goes mad and kills his coworker the CEO should be charged with murder? What if his salary got cut and it was a customer? Where do you draw the line?
What’s needed is regulation and fines, so that it’s not the “cost of doing business” and they lose money (the one thing that dictates their decisions) from this stunt. If there was actually a decent competitor, they could simply be forced to fully refund impacted customers who decide to switch, but HP has basically a monopoly on printers. This is a sign they need to be broken up or put under strict regulation like utilities.
That would a) fully repay affected customers, b) stop the practice for future customers, and c) discourage other companies from this practice. IMO 3 goals, and the only 3 reasons, we have a justice system and punishments in the first place. This isn’t an action which caused permanent, life-altering harm. This is an action which can be 110% undone (via extra fines), so no further punishment is necessary.
And yes, I know petty thieves and druggies serve jail time for causing much lesser problems. That’s wrong too. “2 wrongs don’t make a right”
What’s needed is regulation and fines, so that it’s not the “cost of doing business” and they lose money (the one thing that dictates their decisions) from this stunt. If there was actually a decent competitor, they could simply be forced to fully refund impacted customers who decide to switch, but HP has basically a monopoly on printers. This is a sign they need to be broken up or put under strict regulation like utilities.
That would a) fully repay affected customers, b) stop the practice for future customers, and c) discourage other companies from this practice. IMO 3 goals, and the only 3 reasons, we have a justice system and punishments in the first place. This isn’t an action which caused permanent, life-altering harm. This is an action which can be 110% undone (via extra fines), so no further punishment is necessary.
And yes, I know petty thieves and druggies serve jail time for causing much lesser problems. That’s wrong too. “2 wrongs don’t make a right”
Step one would probably be making this practice illegal in the first place, which, as far as I can tell, it isn't. Putting the cart before the horse to worry about who's liable for doing something legal.
Not my practice area, and I don't know all the facts. But if they sold printers and later disable those printers, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to treat that as a fraud or swindle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, or as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under 15 U.S.C. § 45.
If this were anything other than tech - if, say, IKEA sold you a bed frame that disintegrated the moment you used a non-IKEA mattress or comforter - I don't think the government would be so blasé about it.
(EDIT: Perhaps less of a case if the printer merely won't work with those cartridges rather than actually being disabled.)
If this were anything other than tech - if, say, IKEA sold you a bed frame that disintegrated the moment you used a non-IKEA mattress or comforter - I don't think the government would be so blasé about it.
(EDIT: Perhaps less of a case if the printer merely won't work with those cartridges rather than actually being disabled.)
Right, it doesn’t seem quite analogous if you can resolve the problem by getting the approved ink again. Which is the case here.
HP also talks about dynamic security upfront in their documentation and marketing materials.
I'm skeptical that a deceptive euphemism somehow makes this less of a deceptive trade practice.
At the end of the day I'm not sure that a lock that prevents you from using non-authorized equipment/refills/whatever is very different from established practice. If they bricked the printer altogether sure, that'd be a new frontier, and it seems like many commenters have erroneously understood that to be the story, but that's not what's going on.
Are non-HP cartridges a vector for hacking? If not then what does that have to do with security?
Honestly I wouldn’t be shocked but I don’t think cheap inkjet printers are a high enough value target that you’d see that in the wild a lot.
Make them pay the fines personally. They take credit and make big money when employees do the right thing, so let's make it a two way street. Once their net worth gets wiped, maybe they will get the message.
This does not work, they have insurance against this.
It may be hard to get insurance once they have to pay more often.
Wait... what!?
How can that possibly be legal?
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...
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.”
Reality: “Our insurance takes care of practically all personal risk.”
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.
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.
No, the way they get away with it is to collude, and make sure customers have no other choices.
No, the way they get away with it is to collude, and make sure customers have no other choices.
There are other printer brands that do not follow HP's lowball tactics.
Knowing HP's shitty policies some years ago I bought an HP color laser printer off eBay that was already then several years old. It was a model I understood to be able to work with cheap 3rd party ink cartridges.
I feel like these older, pre-dynamic security printers are going to be gold. Hang on to your babies, keep them safe, keep them running.
I feel like these older, pre-dynamic security printers are going to be gold. Hang on to your babies, keep them safe, keep them running.
> 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
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.
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.
Netflix is down by a lot.
Some of that may be due to temporary outlook during the COVID pandemic.
However, it's still down by more than 10% from a pre-lockdown stock price of ~380.00 in February 2020.
Some of that may be due to temporary outlook during the COVID pandemic.
However, it's still down by more than 10% from a pre-lockdown stock price of ~380.00 in February 2020.
"People" in general are incapable of making these kinds of logical decisions and can't be blamed for the behavior of corporations.
HP printing revenue has been sliding for more than a decade.
Most HPs are bought by companies. People who decide to buy HP are not those that use them and not even those that refill them.
My office stopped buying HP printers a long time ago. They buy Ricoh now (actually they lease them with a maintenance agreement).
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 disgusting to me that they would even consider doing this, let alone actually carry it out.
What must they think of their customers? It's unforgivable.
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 disgusting to me that they would even consider doing this, let alone actually carry it out.
What must they think of their customers? It's unforgivable.
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.
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.
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.
> Boycotts can be immensely powerful, and strike fear into the hearts of those who would exploit us.
I cannot find a single example of a successful boycott in my lifetime. Can you?
I cannot find a single example of a successful boycott in my lifetime. Can you?
Most do nothing major, but I found a list as the top result from a search for "successful boycotts".
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-boycotts-history-201802...
In my lifetime: The South African Apartheid boycotts drove US congressional action and ultimately resulted in an end to apartheid.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-boycotts-history-201802...
In my lifetime: The South African Apartheid boycotts drove US congressional action and ultimately resulted in an end to apartheid.
There've been some few recently in the public backlash to the "woke" movement. It's been so effective particularly regarding financials a rallying meme emerged:
"Go woke, go broke!"
Little of this reaches mainstream outlets, as embarrassing oneself's somewhat untenable for institutions in speedy declines, partly, from relatedly-shortsighted population-alienators.
Little of this reaches mainstream outlets, as embarrassing oneself's somewhat untenable for institutions in speedy declines, partly, from relatedly-shortsighted population-alienators.
[deleted]
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 personal accountability means the company leadership has very limited downside, even if they completely screw up.
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 personal accountability means the company leadership has very limited downside, even if they completely screw up.
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.
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.
HN is so bipolar.
This seems to be the top vote comment here, demanding jail time for CEOs for printers not working.
Meanwhile, the top comment on an article painstakingly detailing how a company is using every dirty trick in the book to get mentally incapable or distressed, etc people to sell homes to them at far below market value has a top comment basically saying “well, they signed a contract”.
Or maybe it’s as simple as this affects most HNers, so it’s the worst thing in the world, whereas that doesn’t, so people it does affect are just suckers.
This seems to be the top vote comment here, demanding jail time for CEOs for printers not working.
Meanwhile, the top comment on an article painstakingly detailing how a company is using every dirty trick in the book to get mentally incapable or distressed, etc people to sell homes to them at far below market value has a top comment basically saying “well, they signed a contract”.
Or maybe it’s as simple as this affects most HNers, so it’s the worst thing in the world, whereas that doesn’t, so people it does affect are just suckers.
Isn't it a good thing that HN isn't a hivemind?
> The CEO and the board must serve prison time for things like this.
I'm not sure if it's hyperbole or not. If it's not, what law was broken?
(Honest question. I'm not a fan of this, but I was curious if it's actually illegal.)
I'm not sure if it's hyperbole or not. If it's not, what law was broken?
(Honest question. I'm not a fan of this, but I was curious if it's actually illegal.)
The argument isn't. "This is illegal so the CEO should be jailed". Instead the argument is "This should be made illegal so the threat of jail ensures CEOs keep this from happening."
Worth noting that we make things illegal when we feel they should be illegal, and for no other reason. In a democracy the feeling turns to a vote which turns to legislation. In this case, we would pass a law making executives personally criminally liable for anti-competative, anti-consumer behavior like this. I do not think it would run afoul of the Constitution, either.
I think we should pass the law and try it out, see how it feels.
I think we should pass the law and try it out, see how it feels.
Maybe none. Everything was done above board, capitalism (growing capital as a core value) worked as intended.
It was immoral and unethical but those are lesser concerns than maximising return on capital invested. Possibly, no law was clearly broken.
We need to outsource some of our lawmaking to ethics boards/commissions if we want to keep capitalism. Otherwise, every other company is now looking to defraud its customers and that’s the only way an endless desire for capital growth (exponential growth expectations from investors) goes.
It was immoral and unethical but those are lesser concerns than maximising return on capital invested. Possibly, no law was clearly broken.
We need to outsource some of our lawmaking to ethics boards/commissions if we want to keep capitalism. Otherwise, every other company is now looking to defraud its customers and that’s the only way an endless desire for capital growth (exponential growth expectations from investors) goes.
Prison is excessive.
But how about some sort of environmental levy on any device prematurely 'bricked', or disposed of before reaching a certain lifespan.
Including those bricked by server shutdowns, or by the inevitable failure of non-replaceable batteries. Perhaps even those designed to be somewhat fragile but not economically repairable - thinking of all the phones and tablets discarded due to cracked screens.
But how about some sort of environmental levy on any device prematurely 'bricked', or disposed of before reaching a certain lifespan.
Including those bricked by server shutdowns, or by the inevitable failure of non-replaceable batteries. Perhaps even those designed to be somewhat fragile but not economically repairable - thinking of all the phones and tablets discarded due to cracked screens.
Isn’t an environmental levy just a fine? Maybe prison is excessive but there needs to be a way to punish bad actors personally on an individual level. It’s clear that current corporate level fines aren’t effective.
It's costed in differently.
A fine requires you to be sued, whereas the levy applies immediately
A fine requires you to be sued, whereas the levy applies immediately
Why? HP has documented that they do this for years.
The solution is really simple. Buy a printer that doesn’t do this. Many exist. They cost more, because HP sells these as loss leaders.
The solution is really simple. Buy a printer that doesn’t do this. Many exist. They cost more, because HP sells these as loss leaders.
Which printers with ink cartridges does HP sell that are not loss leaders? Do they not do this on them?
I don’t follow the models closely as I don’t really care.
For HP, basically you look at $350-500 devices as the entry point. Some of the commercial inkjet and all of the midrange laser printers don’t have these problems.
Brother and Epson definitely offer devices with no ink controls. Canon used to, not sure about today. Epson sells a fixed print head printer with tanks of ink.
HPs strategy is a subscription model for casual users. It’s probably the best value for most people, who don’t really care about print and want minimal viable capabilities. If it’s not for you, it’s a declining, although still competitive market.
For HP, basically you look at $350-500 devices as the entry point. Some of the commercial inkjet and all of the midrange laser printers don’t have these problems.
Brother and Epson definitely offer devices with no ink controls. Canon used to, not sure about today. Epson sells a fixed print head printer with tanks of ink.
HPs strategy is a subscription model for casual users. It’s probably the best value for most people, who don’t really care about print and want minimal viable capabilities. If it’s not for you, it’s a declining, although still competitive market.
As someone here came up with, as punishment instead of fines the government should be granted X percentage non-dilutable ownership of the company. Mess up once, you now have to deal with the government owning 5% or more. This punishes the shareholders/owners in a real way that fines don't. If the business continues to mess up the government would acquires more ownership until it becomes majority owner and can completely clean house. The Government can sell their ownership after X years or if once in majority control replaces X people in management. Funds from sales could not be used for general budget purposes (to prevent the government from instituting taking as policy) but instead social goods projects (provide waterworks improvement grants, provide scholarships, etc).
The government takes money for public education from me and doesn't let me swap cartridges (i.e., spend that money on a less crappy school that it doesn't run). So not looking forward to your plan.
I like the sentiment a lot but curious what law this is against that has prison time as a consequence? I can’t think of any, but if there are none, we should pass laws that allow this to put these people on notice and then aggressively prosecute.
intentionally destroying someone’s property?
Let's see a statute this would fall under.
Not the poster or taking a position, but California Penal Code 594 (Vandalism/Malicious Mischief) might apply if one were to try to take that direction. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...]
Difficulty: it’s a wobbler, and is only a misdemeanor unless it’s > $400 worth of damage. Good luck proving that in this situation.
Maybe if they wrote in an email their evil plan to set the printers on fire so their customers would buy new ones, and it caught some people’s houses on fire.
Civil claims or a class action are an entirely different matter of course.
Difficulty: it’s a wobbler, and is only a misdemeanor unless it’s > $400 worth of damage. Good luck proving that in this situation.
Maybe if they wrote in an email their evil plan to set the printers on fire so their customers would buy new ones, and it caught some people’s houses on fire.
Civil claims or a class action are an entirely different matter of course.
It’s frustrating to see people argue this. Not because it’s wrong, but besides basically anything that makes it not worth doing will work. The debate to be had is over what is to be done to put policies that discourage this activity in place. Bikeshedding what to do basically just passifies the urge to debate the actually important thing.
What criminal law have they violated?
A fine would totally work if it were big enough, e.g., 100% of the revenue of every affected printer and corresponding ink cartridge ever sold.
It's at times like this that I'm reminded of what Howard Scott said: "A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who hasn't sufficient capital to form a corporation."
Funny how access to enough money to form a corporation, does in certain circumstances tend to clothe your subsequent actions in virtue...
Funny how access to enough money to form a corporation, does in certain circumstances tend to clothe your subsequent actions in virtue...
[deleted]
Punishment should fit the crime. We don't over-punish people to force them to think differently, that has always led to dark periods in history.
There are plenty of low-friction ways consumers could be reimbursed plus the cost of lost time or energy spent on a now 'broken' printer if we wanted to solve this in a fair way.
There are plenty of low-friction ways consumers could be reimbursed plus the cost of lost time or energy spent on a now 'broken' printer if we wanted to solve this in a fair way.
But in America people are overpunished. I often read titles like "he faces up to 100 years in a prison" when in reality it is just a poor Russian guy who didn't murder or hurt anyone, just collected credit card numbers and sold it to other guys. 100 years just for stealing a bit of money? That's draconian laws.
> when in reality it is just a poor Russian guy who didn't murder or hurt anyone, just collected credit card numbers and sold it to other guys. 100 years just for stealing a bit of money? That's draconian laws.
So financial crimes aren't serious to you?
So financial crimes aren't serious to you?
4-5 years would be harsh enough for a crime where nobody gets hurt.
Some people could die if they cant afford medical treatment because a digital fraud...
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 not happening, then that's the fault of the legislators and voters. This is why we need to vote people into office who ensure that consumer protection laws remain strong.
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 not happening, then that's the fault of the legislators and voters. This is why we need to vote people into office who ensure that consumer protection laws remain strong.
> When people agree to a business contract and one side fails to uphold their end of the bargain, the remedy should remain financial
Not at all - when one party intends to cheat another, we call that fraud and we do send people to jail for this regularly.
Not at all - when one party intends to cheat another, we call that fraud and we do send people to jail for this regularly.
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.
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.
The idea that there’s cornucopias of choice in day to day life for 99% of Americans is absurd
You have to go to extraordinary and extreme measures to break out of the basic choices that you are offered for which the profits all go to the same group of people
There is basically Zero diversity in the corporate landscape for either consumers or workers.
Maybe even if that’s the trend, let’s choose not all live in a pvp hellscape owned by about 10,000 people that enjoy infinite luxury, another 8 million who insulate them by showing that “You too can be a class striver and abandon the working class” and the rest of the 8Billion people slowly killing each other for the scraps left behind as everyone tries to claw their way into the 1% and beyond.
You have to go to extraordinary and extreme measures to break out of the basic choices that you are offered for which the profits all go to the same group of people
There is basically Zero diversity in the corporate landscape for either consumers or workers.
Maybe even if that’s the trend, let’s choose not all live in a pvp hellscape owned by about 10,000 people that enjoy infinite luxury, another 8 million who insulate them by showing that “You too can be a class striver and abandon the working class” and the rest of the 8Billion people slowly killing each other for the scraps left behind as everyone tries to claw their way into the 1% and beyond.
> You have to go to extraordinary and extreme measures to break out of the basic choices that you are offered for which the profits all go to the same group of people
In this case we are talking about printers. There are literally dozens of printer makers.
In this case we are talking about printers. There are literally dozens of printer makers.
And Berkshire Hathaway has an outsize position in the largest of them, HP.
What else does BRK own, and thus influence via board and activist shareholder position that is in your home.
This is the point. You can have a million “options” but if they all only benefit a handful of owners then no matter how you “vote” with your dollars it still makes the same people the same money.
Again, you have to go to extremes to find a printer that is manufactured by a union or employee owned cooperative if there even are any.
What else does BRK own, and thus influence via board and activist shareholder position that is in your home.
This is the point. You can have a million “options” but if they all only benefit a handful of owners then no matter how you “vote” with your dollars it still makes the same people the same money.
Again, you have to go to extremes to find a printer that is manufactured by a union or employee owned cooperative if there even are any.
For what it is worth, HP barely still designs printers. Most of them are just rebadged Canons. They have a small number of models that are based on Samsung models that they got from their acquisition and an even smaller number of printers they actually made themselves. For the most part, when you buy a HP, you are buying a Canon printer with HP's label on it and HP firmware. HP is really just a middle man, and I am not sure why people keep buying their printers given that middlemen should be avoided.
Personally I just buy Brother now, though they are starting to do some of the tricks.
Least evil option?
Least evil option?
What is Brother doing now? I haven’t heard that with Brother printers and I had one for years.
Some of their software started to get pushy, and their toner cartridges started to ‘be empty’ too early - with some new printers also having ‘trial’ toners with almost no toner in them.
Mellow compared to the alternatives.
Mellow compared to the alternatives.
Canon does not do this. They also let you opt into the feature that blocks third party cartridges. You read that right. The feature is opt-in.
Coincidentally, many HP and Canon laser printers use slight variations of the same toner cartridges such that third parties can support both printers with the same cartridges:
https://www.shop.xerox.com/supplies-accessories?brand=6346
I am curious if this is also true for the inkjet printers, but finding out would probably involve buying every cartridge and comparing. I cannot justify that expense to sate my curiosity.
Coincidentally, many HP and Canon laser printers use slight variations of the same toner cartridges such that third parties can support both printers with the same cartridges:
https://www.shop.xerox.com/supplies-accessories?brand=6346
I am curious if this is also true for the inkjet printers, but finding out would probably involve buying every cartridge and comparing. I cannot justify that expense to sate my curiosity.
At least with my HL-1112 (bottom-barrel model in 2015) and MFC-L2700DW (entry level all-in-one with decent, albeit aftermarket, multiplatform support) it's trivial to manually reset the levels once you know the button sequence - don't even need a retail cartridge with the mechanical "unused toner" spinner!
That said... yeah, who knows what they're up to, 5 years later?
That said... yeah, who knows what they're up to, 5 years later?
So fraud shouldn't result in prison time? This isn't an "oops I couldn't do what I said", it's purposeful.
I wonder if their lawyers will argue that putting that they do this in their documentation and advertising materials precludes any possibility of fraud. You cannot view HP’s printer descriptions without having this mentioned in them.
> Why not send top stockholders to prison while you're at it?
Or just curtail every holder's shares by a fixed percentage, if/when a publicly-owned company is found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. If the incentive of maximizing shareholder value is no longer aligned with the interests of society, maybe that's how to fix it.
Or just curtail every holder's shares by a fixed percentage, if/when a publicly-owned company is found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. If the incentive of maximizing shareholder value is no longer aligned with the interests of society, maybe that's how to fix it.
This is exactly what a fine does tho?
> 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
This is the sort of overreaction that kills reasonable responses, like making HP reimburse everyone whose printer they disabled, trebled, plus pay a big fine to a regulator and also enter into a consent decree. Hit them with a market cap decimating fine. Then let the Board eat its own.
This is the sort of overreaction that kills reasonable responses, like making HP reimburse everyone whose printer they disabled, trebled, plus pay a big fine to a regulator and also enter into a consent decree. Hit them with a market cap decimating fine. Then let the Board eat its own.
> like making HP reimburse everyone whose printer they disabled
won't happen, because most of the customers live in different countries with different law systems
> hit them with a market cap decimating fine
won't happen, because most of the costs is beared by people in foreign countries who don't matter to US courts, and most of the profits are gathered by people in US (company, owners, shareholders, employees, budget)
It's not an accident that most of the time google and apple are fined by EU and VW is fined by USA.
won't happen, because most of the customers live in different countries with different law systems
> hit them with a market cap decimating fine
won't happen, because most of the costs is beared by people in foreign countries who don't matter to US courts, and most of the profits are gathered by people in US (company, owners, shareholders, employees, budget)
It's not an accident that most of the time google and apple are fined by EU and VW is fined by USA.
Just being able to hold CEOs and directors vicariously liable for employee actions like this would be a good start.
While I support the notion of a lengthy spell of contemplation inside the walls of a prison for all CEOs of printer companies — even prior to this cartridge issue — I cannot help but feel that anything short of summary execution is excusable for the engineer or engineers who were responsible for the logic and error messages pertaining to “PC Load Letter”.
They should also order that HP replaces all of the printers. Make it costly and hard work
If you don’t want to be held accountable you shouldn’t be ceo at all, in my opinion.
In a competitive market, individual consumer decisions punish bad actors.
Hey mcny look up Intel ME/AMT, we probably agree there too.
Or have no one buy their printers...
[deleted]
I completely agree.
100% on the mark!
Say what you will about Carly fiorinas leadership strategy but she certainly set a record for how fast you can pedal an american institution into the ground.
If it weren't for government contracts and Gartner quadrant payola I don't think HP would even exist.
If it weren't for government contracts and Gartner quadrant payola I don't think HP would even exist.
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..
You deliberately misrepresent this as one $80 printer; in reality it is the sum total of all printers bricked by this, plus price gouging the printer owners who don’t want their printer bricked.
If even a few dozen printers were bricked by this it would represent more lost value than the threshold for grand larceny in many jurisdictions; do you propose we let people who steal, say, $1600 of goods walk away scot free? And don’t waste your breath on fines —- those will only be passed on to the captive consumers as the “cost of business.”
If even a few dozen printers were bricked by this it would represent more lost value than the threshold for grand larceny in many jurisdictions; do you propose we let people who steal, say, $1600 of goods walk away scot free? And don’t waste your breath on fines —- those will only be passed on to the captive consumers as the “cost of business.”
I'm curious if this violates U.S. code 1030(a)(5) [0]
"(5)
(A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.[2]"
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
"(5)
(A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.[2]"
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
We should absolutely use every tool available to us. I anal and I don’t quite understand if this is CFAA but it is my personal conviction that that the CFAA is both overly broad and unnecessary and must be repealed.
Meanwhile, it is a miscarriage of justice that prosecutors don’t seem to use CFAA against large corporations.
Meanwhile, it is a miscarriage of justice that prosecutors don’t seem to use CFAA against large corporations.
Are we even sure that the customers legally own the printers? For instance, has anyone bothered to read the EULA that came with whatever bundled software someone installs now days to get the printer driver working?
Even if there isn't surreptitious transfer of the hardware, they could certainly have a clause in there that authorizes them to do such things.
Even if there isn't surreptitious transfer of the hardware, they could certainly have a clause in there that authorizes them to do such things.
Given that it is near impossible to participate in modern society without patronizing contract-abusing corporations, we should ask ourselves:
Do we want to be ruled by laws, or by contracts?
Do we want to be ruled by laws, or by contracts?
That's not how sale of physical products work. If you go to a store and buy a box and take it home, without the people at the store making you read and sign a contract, you own it.
At some point in the recent past, people's ideas of what constitute a contract changed. Previously, it was a firm agreement between two parties, who had met and discussed it, and made a formal declaration that the agreement had been reached (not necessarily by signing papers, but at least some gesture/voiced assent). Now?
Now people seem to think that the other party doesn't even have to be present. It's one-sided. No discussion or agreement need take place. No evidence need to be preserved that there was a discussion or agreement. It only protects one side of the deal, not both, and can be amended by one side with no recourse to the other. If you listen carefully, you catch wind of this idea all the time in daily life. Talking about gym memberships, cell phone plans, cable tv, etc.
The people talking about it are on the losing side, too. They don't seem hurt or angry or confused, they accept it as if it's the way things should be or have to be.
It's not entirely clear to me why this switched. It's not clear to me how no one ever seemed to be outraged over it.
I don't think it could be fixed. Sure, I can imagine legislation that might cut out the worst aspects of it (no, gyms can't demand that people sign year long contracts unless they also prove that they're using the existence of the contracts to justify the purchase of new equipment or the like). But without people at least grumbling about these things, there'd never be pressure for any legislation anyway. Let alone the likelihood that this is more of a matter for the courts than legislatures.
Given all this, I don't think that people are buying physical products anymore. How many exercise bikes or treadmills out there are cloud-connected and will stop working if the company goes out of business? Or if your "subscription" ends and you don't let it auto-renew?
The ship has sailed, I think, on the concept of personal property.
Now people seem to think that the other party doesn't even have to be present. It's one-sided. No discussion or agreement need take place. No evidence need to be preserved that there was a discussion or agreement. It only protects one side of the deal, not both, and can be amended by one side with no recourse to the other. If you listen carefully, you catch wind of this idea all the time in daily life. Talking about gym memberships, cell phone plans, cable tv, etc.
The people talking about it are on the losing side, too. They don't seem hurt or angry or confused, they accept it as if it's the way things should be or have to be.
It's not entirely clear to me why this switched. It's not clear to me how no one ever seemed to be outraged over it.
I don't think it could be fixed. Sure, I can imagine legislation that might cut out the worst aspects of it (no, gyms can't demand that people sign year long contracts unless they also prove that they're using the existence of the contracts to justify the purchase of new equipment or the like). But without people at least grumbling about these things, there'd never be pressure for any legislation anyway. Let alone the likelihood that this is more of a matter for the courts than legislatures.
Given all this, I don't think that people are buying physical products anymore. How many exercise bikes or treadmills out there are cloud-connected and will stop working if the company goes out of business? Or if your "subscription" ends and you don't let it auto-renew?
The ship has sailed, I think, on the concept of personal property.
Yes, non-proud HP InkJet owner. You own the printer. However, you MUST be subscribed to their HP Whatever Program and pre-pay them the amount of pages you’d like to print on a monthly basis. You cannot print unless you are on the program. I did read these terms because it was insane, and I’m paraphrasing.
It looks like they updated their program terms to force you to buy their ink. Honestly I thought that was already the case since I had tried using cheaper ink and the printer rejected it.
It looks like they updated their program terms to force you to buy their ink. Honestly I thought that was already the case since I had tried using cheaper ink and the printer rejected it.
I have a HP PhotoSmart C3180 that predates that program. It did not work well with third party ink cartridges, but it could be that HP did something in the firmware to sabotage them. I have since stopped buying ink cartridges. I only print using laser printers now. The HP is nothing more than a high resolution scanner at this point.
I doubt you have have any problem convincing that printers are goods that you own and the EULA is meaningless. Eulas already are questionable from a legal standpoint as they don't really meet the standards of a contract.
If we ever want customers to have a fighting chance at protecting their rights against the interests of corporations, we must drastically narrow what rights can be 'waived' in an EULA. It's absurd that today you can buy a physical good and somehow some non-negotiated piece of legalese that you don't even get to read until you open the box can somehow 'authorize' them to choose what kind of ink you are allowed to put in it. This notion must die and any castles built upon it must fall.
> Are we even sure that the customers legally own the printers? For instance, has anyone bothered to read the EULA
What If i never installed their software? Now what?
What If i never installed their software? Now what?
I recall a court ruling that stated that a router is not a computer, so have fun trying to convince a court that a printer is a computer.
Also, what counts as protected?
Also, what counts as protected?
Did they misrepresent the printer? They advertise “dynamic security” in their marketing as if it were a good thing. If it was in the advertising and documentation, how is that misrepresentation?
That being said, HP seems to mostly rebadge Canon printers loaded with their firmware, so I am not sure why people are still buying them. HP is just a middle man these days.
That being said, HP seems to mostly rebadge Canon printers loaded with their firmware, so I am not sure why people are still buying them. HP is just a middle man these days.
Prison seems very extreme to me. But maybe it's appropriate, I don't know.
What would happen if you went around to every house in your neighborhood and smashed everyone's printers? Would you be fined 0.01% of the cost of damaged items, or would you go to jail?
whats the threshold? how much damage has to occur until a CEO can be held to the same standards as a citizen?
"corporations are people except for all that crime and punishment stuff."
"corporations are people except for all that crime and punishment stuff."
I can't believe such a response. Is not the $80 dollar printer, is that HP is crossing a line, boarding the realm of illegality, misappropriating an electronic device that should be yours. And is also not money that you lose. Is frustration, time and feeling miserably deceit by a corporation that gives a shit about you. Also that you probably end up buying another printer and/or wasting time doing some research on printers online to not fall again into a dirty and dodgy maneuver like this.
Not saying they should go to jail, but OP is saying they're bricking potentially millions of printers, not one $80 printer.
I'm quite sure you can go to prison for stealing a printer. Why not for breaking one?
The cynical answer might be that HP secretly updated their TOS so that the printer transaction is not a purchase but a long term rental on their terms. Not unlike “buying” a game on Steam or “buying” a Tesla. In both cases, you do something the vendor dislikes and your ownership is toast.
That is vandalism.
Poor people sometimes go to prison for far smaller crimes than this. The problem is that far too often, rich and powerful people are only held accountable if they hurt other rich and powerful people.
And if it's a million $80 printers affected by this, it's an $80 million crime.
And if it's a million $80 printers affected by this, it's an $80 million crime.
It's not a 80$ printer but damage to society, or if you find that exaggerated hurting and lying to customers.
Prison is hard, on the other hand let the scale of damage and intention decide.. more human would be just stick to penalties. They just must be high enough to hurt really, not ridiculous amounts you can price in. Like do it once and maybe get away with it, but do it twice or thrice and you will quite certainly bankrupt the company.
Prison is hard, on the other hand let the scale of damage and intention decide.. more human would be just stick to penalties. They just must be high enough to hurt really, not ridiculous amounts you can price in. Like do it once and maybe get away with it, but do it twice or thrice and you will quite certainly bankrupt the company.
Ink isn't a "part".
[deleted]
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.
This is one of those really good "vote with your wallets" situations.
The last time printer shenanigans came up on HN, it was related specifically to apparent Brother shenanigans [0]. I was planning on buying a Brother at the time due to similar comments like yours, and still did so. I've been a happy customer since day 1 with the thing, it just works, even on mobile, and it's fast and quiet. I hope Brother can remain sane.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
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.
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.
So my one-man boycott failed.
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.
So my one-man boycott failed.
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.
And I don't know if it's related, but my Samsung wireless network printer does not print from the network anymore.
My Samsung printer does not support networking. If I want to put it on the network, I need to put it behind a print host.
That being said, at least Samsung toner is cheap:
https://www.aaatoner.com/blreto4.html
I can get 1kg of toner for my printer for $35 before shipping. The cartridges only hold 90 grams.
There is even a third party chipless update to disable the chip:
https://inkchip.net/laser/
Unfortunately, the imaging drum is integrated with the cartridge, is not meant to last and HP is not making new ones. I do not know how many refills I will get out of it. However, the starter toner cartridge lasted 8 years and I replaced it with a regular cartridge at that time, so it will be a long time before I need to refill its replacement.
That said, I felt betrayed when Samsung sold its printing unit to HP too. :/
That being said, at least Samsung toner is cheap:
https://www.aaatoner.com/blreto4.html
I can get 1kg of toner for my printer for $35 before shipping. The cartridges only hold 90 grams.
There is even a third party chipless update to disable the chip:
https://inkchip.net/laser/
Unfortunately, the imaging drum is integrated with the cartridge, is not meant to last and HP is not making new ones. I do not know how many refills I will get out of it. However, the starter toner cartridge lasted 8 years and I replaced it with a regular cartridge at that time, so it will be a long time before I need to refill its replacement.
That said, I felt betrayed when Samsung sold its printing unit to HP too. :/
I was not aware of any of this. Thank you! I've just been buying on- or off-brand toner cartridges for way more money than this. (The off-brand ones work fine, the on-brand ones are certainly not perfect; this thing is terrible at photos.)
I buy authentic Brother toner cartridges out of gratitude. I was so happy after years of HP's bad treatment.
They started cracking down on that a year or two ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/printers/comments/s9b2eg/brother_mf...
https://www.reddit.com/r/printers/comments/s9b2eg/brother_mf...
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.
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.
I would like to vouch for Xerox laser printers. Not only they don't identify your printouts with tiny yellow markings/serial number, but also they gladly accept off-market toners, and places like Amazon have many different brands that race to the bottom of price making it easy to try out what works for you. I am on my third Xerox laser printer and couldn't be happier.
Their low end models are just rebadged Lexmark printers while their high models are rebadged Samsung printers (the same IP that is now owned by HP).
It is a shame that they stopped developing their own models.
It is a shame that they stopped developing their own models.
OH wow. So Xerox dont make laser any more? I always thought it was Samsung that buy laser from Xerox, not the other way round.
I bought an awesome Xerox duplex colour laser two years and can confirm. Superb. Way better than the Samsung/HP thing it replaced. About to put more after-market toners in tomorrow
Still avoid HP. I have an HP color laser printer. It worked flawlessly. Then the toner ran out and I replaced it with a 3rd party toner.
The printer just stopped working from most of my computers. I tried everything.
I was going to replace it, then decided to try a 1st party cartridge again. And it’s been basically flawless again.
Such a scam.
The printer just stopped working from most of my computers. I tried everything.
I was going to replace it, then decided to try a 1st party cartridge again. And it’s been basically flawless again.
Such a scam.
Even they're not exempt from being messed with. I had an HP color laser printer which, when purchased, would print on any paper size that would fit in the printer. (Specifically used it to print to US Legal Size.) A firmware update some years back disabled printing to anything larger than US Letter Sized.
I now own a Brother printer that is perfectly happy to print to larger paper.
I now own a Brother printer that is perfectly happy to print to larger paper.
Lasers also have issues. I had a laser my last printer but had issues with the imgaging drum and other parts. Eventually tonor ended up on some of the rollers and the printer was basically useless at this point.
I bought an epson workforce back some years ago. When it had printing issues i was able to do some cleaning runs and reslove. I have used ink quite a bit over time. But probably not nearly as much as the imaging drum, rollers and other parts i ended up swapping trying to stop the darkened prints on my main machine. The original laser was about 400 bucks, inkjet like 89.99. I dont think i spent more on the inkjet, even after the swaps.
I bought an epson workforce back some years ago. When it had printing issues i was able to do some cleaning runs and reslove. I have used ink quite a bit over time. But probably not nearly as much as the imaging drum, rollers and other parts i ended up swapping trying to stop the darkened prints on my main machine. The original laser was about 400 bucks, inkjet like 89.99. I dont think i spent more on the inkjet, even after the swaps.
Exactly this, I've not gone near an inkjet printer since 1992. When Apple released it's first "affordable" $1000 laser printer.
I'm still rocking a Brother DCP-7060D from over a decade ago, using an aftermarket toner I bought from my university tech store.
[deleted]
> This is one of those really good "vote with your wallets" situations.
This is a really good situation for actual voting, like actual political action to have regulation, instead of pretend voting.
HP probably doesn't give a damn about the HN crowd, it won't affect their business line in the little, so there's no signaling here.
And assuming Brother gets enough of a loyal following, they can now (probably already are) jack the prices and push the envelope of what's acceptable as business practices, until you'll have to start looking around again at who's left to let you escape predatory practices.
This is a really good situation for actual voting, like actual political action to have regulation, instead of pretend voting.
HP probably doesn't give a damn about the HN crowd, it won't affect their business line in the little, so there's no signaling here.
And assuming Brother gets enough of a loyal following, they can now (probably already are) jack the prices and push the envelope of what's acceptable as business practices, until you'll have to start looking around again at who's left to let you escape predatory practices.
Hard disagree. This is how Chrome won the browser wars - people ask their nerdy cousin which browser to use.
The market of HN is small, but the market power is large. Also, I guarantee you people here make large corporate purchases for things like printers, networking equipment - stuff HP cares about.
The market of HN is small, but the market power is large. Also, I guarantee you people here make large corporate purchases for things like printers, networking equipment - stuff HP cares about.
Browsers are free, so the choice is to get "the best". With printers the cheapest is often "good enough" and inkjet printers have an intentionally low up front cost. Convincing people that a laser printer is the cheaper choice even if they think that they "barely print anything" is an uphill battle.
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. They also work well for the first 30~40 prints, and while we'll bitch about printer ink price, regular people will see it as a cost of doing business and pay.
- Brother printers are reliable but actually not that good from a "what features do you have ?" customer standpoint. I ended up having a secundary HP printer for that very reason: it fits in a niche that no other sane printer maker will touch. And come to think of it, my parents bought the same HP printer after seeing use it in vacation, and they never asked about our Xerox in the living room. And yes, they buy HP cartridges (they also didn't ask me before buying...)
Large corporate purchases: nobody "buys" printer or ink. They comes with a lease and a maintenance contract, and are paid by the page. If the technician comes within 3h to fix the printer and it works ok for another 40 days, no office manager will care about what exact printers are set in the buildings.
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. They also work well for the first 30~40 prints, and while we'll bitch about printer ink price, regular people will see it as a cost of doing business and pay.
- Brother printers are reliable but actually not that good from a "what features do you have ?" customer standpoint. I ended up having a secundary HP printer for that very reason: it fits in a niche that no other sane printer maker will touch. And come to think of it, my parents bought the same HP printer after seeing use it in vacation, and they never asked about our Xerox in the living room. And yes, they buy HP cartridges (they also didn't ask me before buying...)
Large corporate purchases: nobody "buys" printer or ink. They comes with a lease and a maintenance contract, and are paid by the page. If the technician comes within 3h to fix the printer and it works ok for another 40 days, no office manager will care about what exact printers are set in the buildings.
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 for remanufactured toner cartridges.
On the other hand, Brother prevents cartridges from being reused more than once, which likely kills the market for remanufactured toner cartridges.
I bought a Canon (model LBP612C/613C) color laser printer 3 years ago and have been using 3rd party toner. The prints are great and I've never had a problem. Prior to that I used a Brother b&w laser, also used 3rd party toner, and never had an issue with that one either.
That seems nice. I never tried Canon, but I'm glad they present some competition/alternatives to Brother and Xerox etc.
I think plastering it all over Google's home page probably did more.
How ironic, the very thing OP warned against happened to Chrome: being now a monopoly it pushes very uncool stuff and no amount of geeks can undo that.
Chrome only won the browser wars because Microsoft was hit by people's votes on anti-trust.
Brother already started doing that. You could go with Canon instead.
I've had my Brother laser printer for 10 years, only changed the toner cartridge once, and it immediately starts printing when you need it to. One of the best purchases I ever made!
Not every Brother printer is usable.
Ethernet, IPP and Postscript support are requirements.
So that they can work with generic drivers, on a range of platforms, without much setup complexity.
Ethernet, IPP and Postscript support are requirements.
So that they can work with generic drivers, on a range of platforms, without much setup complexity.
During previous discussions about this there have been some comments indicating Brother is headed down this road as well. No idea how accurate that is.
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 good printers that are inexpensive and live a long life?
I bought mine about 4.5 years ago; hardware seems fine so far.
> happy life
yeah, so... not so much when it comes to toners. Either the toner capacity is really low, or the MFP becomes disenchanted with toners quickly. I get "Toner Low" extremely quickly - even with only a few hundred pages printed. Granted, I don't print much these days, but still. And I've already experienced a case in which I put in a new toner and was already told it was low.
Other than that no complaints.
> 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 good printers that are inexpensive and live a long life?
I bought mine about 4.5 years ago; hardware seems fine so far.
> happy life
yeah, so... not so much when it comes to toners. Either the toner capacity is really low, or the MFP becomes disenchanted with toners quickly. I get "Toner Low" extremely quickly - even with only a few hundred pages printed. Granted, I don't print much these days, but still. And I've already experienced a case in which I put in a new toner and was already told it was low.
Other than that no complaints.
When I got my recently-acquired MFC-L3550CDW home, I went to set it up over the network and it just worked. Trying to install the drivers stopped it working :P.
I've not tried printing to it over USB, but over Ethernet it supports IPP and mDNS so all you need to do to print is connect the printer to the network and CUPS will find it automatically.
At some point in the last ten years, network printing has gone from dark magic to just working, and in my experience working better on Linux than Mac or Windows. Printing from Android took a smidge of manual set up but now also just works when called upon. It's almost disappointing, until I remember that while I quite enjoy tinkering I also bought the printer to actually print stuff.
The scanner? Also just works over the network. Mind blown.
I've not tried printing to it over USB, but over Ethernet it supports IPP and mDNS so all you need to do to print is connect the printer to the network and CUPS will find it automatically.
At some point in the last ten years, network printing has gone from dark magic to just working, and in my experience working better on Linux than Mac or Windows. Printing from Android took a smidge of manual set up but now also just works when called upon. It's almost disappointing, until I remember that while I quite enjoy tinkering I also bought the printer to actually print stuff.
The scanner? Also just works over the network. Mind blown.
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.
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.
It amazes that in 2023, other operating systems still need separate drivers for printers. I just look for AirPrint compatible printers and they work seamless from my Mac, iPhone and iPad. I pulled an old 2010 iPad out a couple of years ago and it could print to a brand new printer.
> I just look for AirPrint compatible printers
A custom, single-vendor protocol? Hmm. Is it at least license-free and patent-free? ... I doubt it.
A custom, single-vendor protocol? Hmm. Is it at least license-free and patent-free? ... I doubt it.
You mean like Postscript?
No there is no license fee.
This is just like everything else on modern operating system. Apple defines a protocol for printers and if you follow that protocol, Apple guarantees compatibility and the user doesn’t have to worry about printer drivers and the manufacturer doesn’t have to worry about creating a new printer driver when a new operating system is released.
When a Windows user updates to a new OS, they have to often go find a new driver. I connect my Mac or iOS device to my WiFI network and it automatically found all of my of my AirPrint compatible printers.
As a vendor, if I support AirPrint, my addressable market is anyone who has bought an iOS device since 2010 or a Mac since 2012.
That’s a much better system than the malware that comes with most Windows printers.
No there is no license fee.
This is just like everything else on modern operating system. Apple defines a protocol for printers and if you follow that protocol, Apple guarantees compatibility and the user doesn’t have to worry about printer drivers and the manufacturer doesn’t have to worry about creating a new printer driver when a new operating system is released.
When a Windows user updates to a new OS, they have to often go find a new driver. I connect my Mac or iOS device to my WiFI network and it automatically found all of my of my AirPrint compatible printers.
As a vendor, if I support AirPrint, my addressable market is anyone who has bought an iOS device since 2010 or a Mac since 2012.
That’s a much better system than the malware that comes with most Windows printers.
>They offer a closed-source Linux and you need to download an installer from them
Similar experience with their label printers, except they only had a i386 binary, which rather killed my idea of a raspberry pi print server. Also it was generally just terrible and froze after a few labels.
Similar experience with their label printers, except they only had a i386 binary, which rather killed my idea of a raspberry pi print server. Also it was generally just terrible and froze after a few labels.
I know that. There are no signs at best buy that tell people that BEFORE they unknowingly buy these garbage products.
My brother laser seems to eat colour toner when it's only printing black and white for some reason.
Don't get me wrong, it's still a decent printer, but short of what I would consider "really good".
Also, I read here in another thread that a recent firmware update also blocked third party cartridges.
Don't get me wrong, it's still a decent printer, but short of what I would consider "really good".
Also, I read here in another thread that a recent firmware update also blocked third party cartridges.
Not true for my brother MFC. It mow refuses to accept generic toner.
I bought a Brother laser printer like the internet told me to, and I even paid extra money to get the one that is easy to connect on wifi, but we can't seem to connect the printer to any macs wirelessly. It only connects to the iphones and the ubuntu machine. It just doesn't show up in macs. Anyone know anything about that?
Have you tried manually adding it? When adding a printer you can change the type to 'airprint' which makes it discoverable in the same way that iphones discover printers. You could also use the IP address directly if you must.
Thanks, I'll look at that. Since it doesn't show up I'm not sure what to add. The printer doesn't identify itself in any way.
Make sure it has a fixed IP and doesn't default to using DHCP
(not sure this will fix yours, but saw a thread elsewhere where that was the cure)
Yup, beware of DHCP with printers. I've never not been burned.
I'll check that, thanks!
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.
> Ok now it says 01101101 and I need you to change it to 10001111.
Something to that effect. Ew.
To be fair, that's a truly niche usecase.
HPLIP though...HP has done a good job of making no-brainer printers even be no-brainers in Linux.
The value proposition is especially relevant if the printers & refills themselves are simple business expenses.
Not saying the company is perfect, but there's a lot of room between the headlines and day-to-day use.
The value proposition is especially relevant if the printers & refills themselves are simple business expenses.
Not saying the company is perfect, but there's a lot of room between the headlines and day-to-day use.
Yes, I was going to mention Brother. They're excellent; I've bought their products for years.
But, given advertising is legal, and HP advertises much more aggressively than Brother, we can't rely on "vote with your wallet" to solve this problem. "Vote with your wallet" doesn't work when one competitor is spending money on making quality products and the other is spending money on advertising.
The entire premise that capitalism brings the best products at the lowest cost is falsified by advertising.
But, given advertising is legal, and HP advertises much more aggressively than Brother, we can't rely on "vote with your wallet" to solve this problem. "Vote with your wallet" doesn't work when one competitor is spending money on making quality products and the other is spending money on advertising.
The entire premise that capitalism brings the best products at the lowest cost is falsified by advertising.
So they are true brothers to you?
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.
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.
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.
in a free market shouldn't hp be forced to lower it's prices to compete with 3rd party to a little more than their price since it technically is OEM? I mean like car parts
Free markets don't work if fraud and bad actors are not prosecuted. Otherwise lies and fraud will win against honest actors
They made tank based printers to compete instead of competing on price on these models.
"Free markets" are created by governments and ours hasn't evinced an interest in this particular problem.
They are at a minimum destroying value of the ink, as the ink already put into the printer is useless now. At least the running combination is permanently disabled as long as you do not buy something from HP. With printer prices often as low as the ink prices that is a big deal.
At least they should be required to compensate the users.
At least they should be required to compensate the users.
Thank you, I did not read the article and assumed (based on other comments which are pretty clearly assuming the same) that the title was accurate.
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.
It is clickbait. Nothing borderline about it. Still terrible behaviour from HP, but very unsurprising as opposed to the idea of actually bricking printers.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
That's semi-bricking the printers.
> I'm not condoning HP at all, not in a million years.
You're semi-condoning them.
> That's semi-bricking the printers.
I suppose you could say that, but it would mean something quite different from what bricking normally does. And I wouldn't advise it because it sounds like a soft brick rather than "beep boop replace cartridge".
> You're semi-condoning them.
No they're not.
I suppose you could say that, but it would mean something quite different from what bricking normally does. And I wouldn't advise it because it sounds like a soft brick rather than "beep boop replace cartridge".
> You're semi-condoning them.
No they're not.
> 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.
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.
Semi-bricking is like saying someone is semi-pregnant.
Has there ever been another company that declined as much from its glory days as HP? During the second half of the 20th century HP was a fabled brand. They made beautiful equipment for which there was often no comparable quality alternative in the world. The pocket calculators they built in the 1980s are still sought-after, not just as collectables but also as daily drivers. They built computers during that era, but they we never a "player" in that industry.
Then they shifted their focus to computers and began their long decent into the crappy husk of a company that they are today. The engineers who work there should be ashamed when they implement malware like this printer ink scam.
Then they shifted their focus to computers and began their long decent into the crappy husk of a company that they are today. The engineers who work there should be ashamed when they implement malware like this printer ink scam.
> They built computers during that era, but they we never a "player" in that industry.
HP was definitely a player in the PC industry and has been the number one manufacturer at different times..
https://statisticsanddata.org/data/best-selling-computer-bra...
HP was definitely a player in the PC industry and has been the number one manufacturer at different times..
https://statisticsanddata.org/data/best-selling-computer-bra...
Yes, but I would claim that was when they started going to pot. LONG before the PC era, HP made its own line of computers, which were seldom seen outside of labs, and even labs were much more apt to have a PDP-8 or PDP-11. Their move into commodity computers and peripherals moved them from a situation where they were building the highest quality products available, into one where they had no "moat". After all, who would buy a spectacularly well built PC early in the PC era? After two years you would have wanted to throw it out regardless of how solidly it was built, because back then PCs doubled in performance nearly every year.
There would never be a moat around mainframe computers as commodity Intel chips became more powerful. SUN, DEC, Stratus, Irix, etc all fail to commodity PCs.
Plenty of other companies have declined, or just changed as the people composing them changed. But for HP, yeah, I miss their heyday too. I consider their spinoff Agilent to be the "real" HP now.
I would blame it a bit on standardisation… not too much, but when you drop the development of your own cpu, your own operating systems, your own hardware… you’re an oem like the others.
I often wonder whether companies like HP gave up too easily, why did they let Microsoft and Intel walk all over them.
Intel beat them by far with price/performance ratio.
Not to mention, Intel and Microsoft kinda explicitly targeted all the market share that hp and other similar companies were leaving behind… like desktop computing at home.
HP and similar companies just were blind to that, and never adjusted/resized their research efforts to those markets (huge markets obviously).
Not to mention, Intel and Microsoft kinda explicitly targeted all the market share that hp and other similar companies were leaving behind… like desktop computing at home.
HP and similar companies just were blind to that, and never adjusted/resized their research efforts to those markets (huge markets obviously).
> to reduce the risk of malware attacks
What business does an ink cartridge have containing any significant code that could act as malware? What sort of imbecilic or evil (or both) personage designs a system that makes this even remotely possible and then sells it to the general public?
Of course there is no answer to that because it isn't a real reason, it is crap regurgitated by a PR drone who knows next to nothing about tech details and has been told to drop the phrase in to make it look like the company is defending their customers from something rather than being a something their customers need defending from…
(or worse, the PR person knows a bit about tech, so knows the malware angle is complete bunkum, and was actively lying.)
What business does an ink cartridge have containing any significant code that could act as malware? What sort of imbecilic or evil (or both) personage designs a system that makes this even remotely possible and then sells it to the general public?
Of course there is no answer to that because it isn't a real reason, it is crap regurgitated by a PR drone who knows next to nothing about tech details and has been told to drop the phrase in to make it look like the company is defending their customers from something rather than being a something their customers need defending from…
(or worse, the PR person knows a bit about tech, so knows the malware angle is complete bunkum, and was actively lying.)
HP's actions here remind me of what Sony did in 2010. Sony was sued and eventually had to pay.
Revising/restricting the features of a product after it is sold can have legal consequences.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/sony-settles-linux-batt...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supe...
Revising/restricting the features of a product after it is sold can have legal consequences.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/sony-settles-linux-batt...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supe...
I'll never forget how confused I was when my HP printer kept printing ads, randomly.
Turns out, it was an official practice by HP.
I'll never use any of their products again.
Turns out, it was an official practice by HP.
I'll never use any of their products again.
That sounds like pure horror to me. I haven't heard of this before. Can you provide a source to back this claim?
I hadn’t heard of this before either. A quick search (miraculously, Google still sometimes works for me) indicates two separate phenomena: one is that HP did intend to insert printed ads when you use some of their automated print options (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2519039/hp-partners-wi...), and the other is that some HP printers are “web-enabled” in the sense that emails to a certain printer email address will automatically be printed, and the default access settings allow spam ads which then get automatically printed (https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Mobile-Printing-Cloud-Printing...)
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.
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.
Apple would get the outrage if other app stores existed but you risked bricking your phone if you installed apps from them.
Part of the difference here is likely due to Apple primarily penalising the developers (second order effects hit the consumer). If Apple were directly hitting consumers it would be a louder series of protests.
HP are targeting the consumers, not the 3rd party suppliers, which Apple hits.
Part of the difference here is likely due to Apple primarily penalising the developers (second order effects hit the consumer). If Apple were directly hitting consumers it would be a louder series of protests.
HP are targeting the consumers, not the 3rd party suppliers, which Apple hits.
Apple (reversibly) bricks parts of the phone, even when you buy genuine parts, because they want you to pay them for the new components to be allowed to talk to each other.
>Probably because people are not directly aware of the Apple premium,
It's because it's developers who piss and moan about the 30%, while most consumers get value from having to go through the AppStore, such as 1.) being able to cancel subscriptions quickly and easily and 2.) ensuring that developers aren't abusing permissions to siphon data from the device.
It's because it's developers who piss and moan about the 30%, while most consumers get value from having to go through the AppStore, such as 1.) being able to cancel subscriptions quickly and easily and 2.) ensuring that developers aren't abusing permissions to siphon data from the device.
Also it's actually only a 15% cut for the vast majority of developers. Shouldn't matter either way once Apple is forced to allow sideloading.
Maybe because most non game apps never pay the 30% fee (Netflix, Spotify, apps that see physical services like Uber, apps that require a subscription outside of the App Store) and according to the Epic lawsuit, most of the revenue (80%+) comes from slimy pay to win games.
Whether you think it is a good value is up for debate but users do get some benefit from buying through the App Store. (Security, convenience, etc.)
You get nothing extra from buying HP first party ink otherwise they wouldn’t do this.
You get nothing extra from buying HP first party ink otherwise they wouldn’t do this.
Same argument: "You get nothing extra from buying AppStore apps otherwise they wouldn’t do this."
People are less upset because Apple does not brick the phone when the user downloads an app they don't like. (they might in the future, but not today).
HP doesn't brick the printers either, it just doesn't print with third party cartridges.
That's a fair-ish point, but in practical terms, the printer is bricked until I pay up, whereas the phone is basically working with all free apps and web apps, which for many people is good enough.
So it's a significant difference.
So it's a significant difference.
Because a printer can’t function without ink, that’s its sole purpose unless it is a multi function printer.
iPhones and iPads, you still can do other things, it’s not a paper weight cause you rooted your device or sideloaded an emulator…
iPhones and iPads, you still can do other things, it’s not a paper weight cause you rooted your device or sideloaded an emulator…
As the article states, HP has even been sued for this, yet continues to do it as it's a core part of their profits to keep people buying THEIR ink. Profit alone for the printer itself isn't worth it, they'd otherwise they'd not even bother making printers anymore, but that reoccurring revenue from ink is some sweet sweet cash. It's like google/fakebook/twits whining about people blocking ads or using encryption they can't harvest data from as their source of revenue. Worlds smallest violin.
Worlds smallest violin?
> Worlds smallest violin?
It's a turn of phrase, where you are mocking someone by accompanying their expressed sadness (or whining) by "playing the world's smallest violin", e.g. by rubbing your fingers together
It's a turn of phrase, where you are mocking someone by accompanying their expressed sadness (or whining) by "playing the world's smallest violin", e.g. by rubbing your fingers together
It's like Toyota will disable my car if I did not go to its dealers to do oil changes or regular maintenance.
Make your ink cartridge super high quality with reasonable price, I will buy it. Selling a printer at dirty cheap price and expect to recoup the discount via over priced ink cartridges? your sales and marketing department are doing it wrong, and it's not my problem at all.
Besides, who needs printers these days anymore?
Make your ink cartridge super high quality with reasonable price, I will buy it. Selling a printer at dirty cheap price and expect to recoup the discount via over priced ink cartridges? your sales and marketing department are doing it wrong, and it's not my problem at all.
Besides, who needs printers these days anymore?
You might be interested to know that Volkswagen's newest CNG cars do exactly that - there's a multi-year countdown configured at the factory, and when it runs down you can't use that fuel anymore, just the gasoline fallback!
That's particularly "fun" here in Italy, where (unlike in the rest of Europe), metal cylinders currently need to be removed from the car and sent to one of two national inspection centers for high pressure testing - which requires them to be empty, of course!
And unlike the oil change reminder, you can't reset it with just a button press, you need a computer interface (for which there's a fair amount of competition, but the cheapest for personal use seems to start at 60 € before shipping and is a "cloud" service)
That's particularly "fun" here in Italy, where (unlike in the rest of Europe), metal cylinders currently need to be removed from the car and sent to one of two national inspection centers for high pressure testing - which requires them to be empty, of course!
And unlike the oil change reminder, you can't reset it with just a button press, you need a computer interface (for which there's a fair amount of competition, but the cheapest for personal use seems to start at 60 € before shipping and is a "cloud" service)
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?)
(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?)
At least in German law anything "surprising" in the ToS can't be enforced. This would definitely be surprising to most. So it couldn't legally be done with ToS.
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".
If a "purchase" comes with "terms of use", it should not be classified as a purchase. It should be clearly labeled as "rent".
I would imagine their claim (probably written somewhere when you bought it) is that they do not guarantee it will work with any third-party components.
This is a lesson in combining poor user behaviour with warped incentives.
Low-end cartridge printers are often sold at cost or a loss. Why? Because they make the money back on cartridges. That's why you see silly things like this because third-party ink and cartridges destroys that business model. But that business model only exists because users make decisions based on sticker price for the printer. Running costs rarely enter the picture.
I saw once a camera store owner said he might sometimes make $1 selling a DSLR and then $10 on a $17 UV filter to go with it. Fast food burger places suffer from this too. McDonalds sells burgers at cost pretty much. They make all their money on the drinks and fries. The so-called "value" in meal deals is pretty much pure profit.
If you print any kind of volume, never ever buy a cartridge inkjet printer. Buy a tank printer instead.
As an aside, this issue isn't as simple as people make it out to be. The issue comes up with (for example) iPhone accessories. You can't justify Apple's prices but it's also not true that all third-party products are produced equal. Anker, in general, makes excellent products but some third-party chargers have killed people [1].
I'm sure most third-party cartridges are fine but that's not necessarily true either. Third-party manufacturers are incentivized to make things as cheap as possible. Will that ink print as well? Will it degrade printer performance over time? Who knows? It's another thing you have to worry about and that's also why these companies don't like third-party products because if poor ink clogs up a printer, who is going to get blamed?
Obviously though it's mostly the greed thing though.
[1]: https://www.macgasm.net/news/miscellaneous-news/another-man-...
Low-end cartridge printers are often sold at cost or a loss. Why? Because they make the money back on cartridges. That's why you see silly things like this because third-party ink and cartridges destroys that business model. But that business model only exists because users make decisions based on sticker price for the printer. Running costs rarely enter the picture.
I saw once a camera store owner said he might sometimes make $1 selling a DSLR and then $10 on a $17 UV filter to go with it. Fast food burger places suffer from this too. McDonalds sells burgers at cost pretty much. They make all their money on the drinks and fries. The so-called "value" in meal deals is pretty much pure profit.
If you print any kind of volume, never ever buy a cartridge inkjet printer. Buy a tank printer instead.
As an aside, this issue isn't as simple as people make it out to be. The issue comes up with (for example) iPhone accessories. You can't justify Apple's prices but it's also not true that all third-party products are produced equal. Anker, in general, makes excellent products but some third-party chargers have killed people [1].
I'm sure most third-party cartridges are fine but that's not necessarily true either. Third-party manufacturers are incentivized to make things as cheap as possible. Will that ink print as well? Will it degrade printer performance over time? Who knows? It's another thing you have to worry about and that's also why these companies don't like third-party products because if poor ink clogs up a printer, who is going to get blamed?
Obviously though it's mostly the greed thing though.
[1]: https://www.macgasm.net/news/miscellaneous-news/another-man-...
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.
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.
Apropos. I just invented 3D-way to implement color laser printer. Firstly you have enclosed chamber with transparent top. Then you blow some color powder in the chamber. Maybe you apply some electrostatic forces to speed up the process. When the dust has finally settled on the paper, you just zap it with laser. The melted powder adheres to the paper at appropriate points. You suck the loose powder back to its container and repeat the process with next color.
This is clearly more economical construction compared to Xerox-style laser printer. It collects the powder firstly on separate surface, heats that and then presses adhered shit to the paper.
This is clearly more economical construction compared to Xerox-style laser printer. It collects the powder firstly on separate surface, heats that and then presses adhered shit to the paper.
Who exactly is looking at the stagnant or shrinking printer market and deciding they want to get into manufacturing them?
You can use 3D printers to print 2D things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWZWAfBsm8
Some 3D printers are open source.
Unfortunately, I suspect that most would not be happy with the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWZWAfBsm8
Some 3D printers are open source.
Unfortunately, I suspect that most would not be happy with the results.
Monochrome lasers aren't a big problem if you shop properly. You can do fine with a 1990s era laserjet. The bigger headache is color inkjets, and the ink they consume.
A home color inkjet won't do justice basically any photo, to be fair. You'll have a better time buying a B&W document printer then going to your local photo printing shop for high quality work.
Plus, you'll probably meet cool people.
Plus, you'll probably meet cool people.
Really? That'd be quite a regression. I had a mid-range home color inkjet in the year 2000 that made color prints which were easily as good as local photo printers.
You had to enable higher quality prints, and use the special photo paper, of which they provided samples with the printer.
Oh and you had to wait about 5 minutes for a full page print, maybe 10. But people would say "this came from your HOME printer?" And there's all these little HP logos on the back of the photo, like a real print shop.
I was so impressed by the quality that I printed my first resume on photo paper, and was slightly confused when people were less than blown away by the appearance :-)
You had to enable higher quality prints, and use the special photo paper, of which they provided samples with the printer.
Oh and you had to wait about 5 minutes for a full page print, maybe 10. But people would say "this came from your HOME printer?" And there's all these little HP logos on the back of the photo, like a real print shop.
I was so impressed by the quality that I printed my first resume on photo paper, and was slightly confused when people were less than blown away by the appearance :-)
1) inkjet photo printing is actually pretty good; 2) sometimes you want color printing for basic graphics or colored text, rather than photo realism.
Imagine if IKEA sent someone to your house to smash your plates if you used cutlery they didn't like.
The CEO and board who are supervising this ought to be barred from ever running a company again.
The CEO and board who are supervising this ought to be barred from ever running a company again.
A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with IKEA furniture and then they caught you buying stuff somewhere else and kicked you out.
The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you return to the house.
If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!
The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you return to the house.
If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!
> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house
I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!
If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge.
If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.
I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!
If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge.
If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.
You signed the contract. You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. You could sign a contract to eat shit for a dollar. You’re correct in that some countries restrict consent between individuals.
That's utter nonsense. You can't consent to stuff that is against the law, esp. when the "power balance" when signing the contract is extremely lopsided. Such contract clauses are routinely ruled invalid and unenforceable.
Whether I consent to something has little to do with the law. I would hope that the law upholds consent, but as we see in the EU, it doesn’t.
The company consented to have its contracts limited by continuing to do business in the EU.
As did the gays consent to not marrying, or does “you consent if we voted for it” only apply when you like the vote?
It applies always. But I don't see contractual consent as the highest moral virtue.
Of course it matters how one-sided it is, and of course it matters whether or not this was obvious at the time of purchase. There's absolutely no way this is legal in Europe, but unfortunately it's sometimes hard to make these big American companies follow the law.
this is.. not how contracts work at all. contracts in bad-faith or that impose unreasonable stipulations are not exactly binding regardless of a signature.
the question of course becomes whether or not it is worth it to litigate but that is another conversation.
the question of course becomes whether or not it is worth it to litigate but that is another conversation.
I described the ideal. Ideally, you wouldn’t be able to sign a contract whose contents were made transparent to you, then sue so that only the part of the contract benefitting you is upheld. Yet here we are.
> 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.
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?
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?
Yeah we’ve already established that you want to place restrictions on consent. I also don’t support patents, see what a bit of consistency does for you?
I am precisely saying countries are less legitimate than individuals. Governments hold and use their monopoly on force, they do not follow the rules they impose on those they govern. SpaceX can’t claim Mars and beat down anyone that challenges them, and yet that is exactly how most state borders came to be today. But again, if you’re willing to be consistent, then socialists should feel free to move to Cuba, else they consent to living under capitalism.
I am precisely saying countries are less legitimate than individuals. Governments hold and use their monopoly on force, they do not follow the rules they impose on those they govern. SpaceX can’t claim Mars and beat down anyone that challenges them, and yet that is exactly how most state borders came to be today. But again, if you’re willing to be consistent, then socialists should feel free to move to Cuba, else they consent to living under capitalism.
That's not a more apt analogy at all, that's the stupid explanation they might give to tell themselves they're not being bastards, which they objectively are. It's not about laws or contracts, why are you twisting yourself to defend this?
People bought a printer to print, they were able to print, now they're not due to HP's vandalism. It's so obviously not OK. If HP can't make a printer to sell for $80 then should just not sell printers for $80.
People bought a printer to print, they were able to print, now they're not due to HP's vandalism. It's so obviously not OK. If HP can't make a printer to sell for $80 then should just not sell printers for $80.
The problem is that none of this is obvious to an unaware consumer who thinks they're just buying a printer. The marketing practices surrounding this are deliberate and have a side effect of producing a huge amount of preventable waste.
It's not an apt comparison at all because renting a house and buy an appliance are two completely different things. In particular when you buy a printer you don't sign any contract so HP cannot say "you accepted our terms when you bought it". No I didn't.
>If you don't like the terms of this contract (I don't) then don't sign it. Easy!
it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time.
but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.
it is disingenuous to frame a consumer purchase as the entry into a contract, even if that is the case much of the time.
but I do agree with the idea of boycott through avoidance.
[deleted]
Honestly this is a waste of money, resources and time.
The EU had forced other things nicely like walled gardens.
I would love to see a law for inter operability for third parties.
The EU had forced other things nicely like walled gardens.
I would love to see a law for inter operability for third parties.
I got tired of the user-hostile shenanigans, bad software, low-quality output, and high TCO (5 or 6 HP or Canon devices over the years), finally came to my senses and bought a Brother. It "Just Works", is fast and quiet and reliable, does exactly what it's supposed to, and is in such stark contrast to the typically terrible printer UX it's almost funny.
Is there anything HP has made in the last 20 years that was actually good? It seems like their MO in recent history is to make flimsy, garbage products, heavily market them, and build in restrictions to force you to buy more of their crap. They're worse than Canon, since at least Canon still makes fairly decent cameras.
How about this - a company that makes printers, but has open sourced their design for cartridges so that other people can make and sell cartridges for those printers? Does something like this exist? Or did HP try their best and bury such companies?
This doesn't sound legal, and if it is it shouldn't be.
It’s not, they were sued for this practice a few years ago. They continue to do it.
So long as the cost (fines, legal fees, lost revenue due to bad press) is less than the increase in revenue they receive from forcing users to buy their overprices cartridges, HP's behavior won't change.
My most recent printer is an HP I bought at Costco because I knew it worked with CUPS and HPLIP on Linux and macOS. Given how many times I've seen HP pull this stunt though, I'll most likely shop for a different brand next time.
Part of this is also that HP has captured a LOT of corporate printing locations. The cost of migration for those businesses, universities and organizations is huge. I think that is why they keep getting away with this. Even if individual consumers move away from HP, they still own a huge chunk of the corporate printing market.
My most recent printer is an HP I bought at Costco because I knew it worked with CUPS and HPLIP on Linux and macOS. Given how many times I've seen HP pull this stunt though, I'll most likely shop for a different brand next time.
Part of this is also that HP has captured a LOT of corporate printing locations. The cost of migration for those businesses, universities and organizations is huge. I think that is why they keep getting away with this. Even if individual consumers move away from HP, they still own a huge chunk of the corporate printing market.
FTDI/Microsoft did something similar to counter "counterfeit" FTDI chips[1]. I remember at least one person who bricked and arduino because of it. I instructed everyone I knew who used no-brand arduinos give them away for their colleagues who use linux.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/windo...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/windo...
Yes and:
Authentic HP ink cartridges now have an expiration date. Even when new in package, sealed, and totally fine.
A friend asked me to fix their printer. Error code was nonsensical. Eventually determined an automatic firmware update invalidated their cartridges. Only clue came from other complaints on reddit. HP had no useful info or troubleshooting advice.
Convinced friend to buy a Brother laser printer.
HP is now evil. Got the Jack Welch treatment. I blame Fiorina, Hurd, Whitman, the board, and all the other stooges, for turning a former tech gem into a punch line.
Authentic HP ink cartridges now have an expiration date. Even when new in package, sealed, and totally fine.
A friend asked me to fix their printer. Error code was nonsensical. Eventually determined an automatic firmware update invalidated their cartridges. Only clue came from other complaints on reddit. HP had no useful info or troubleshooting advice.
Convinced friend to buy a Brother laser printer.
HP is now evil. Got the Jack Welch treatment. I blame Fiorina, Hurd, Whitman, the board, and all the other stooges, for turning a former tech gem into a punch line.
Even worse, authorized HP retailers sell nearly expired cartridges.
Happened to my mother who bought an HP-branded cartridge from ("shipped and sold by") Amazon, then got a warning message when she installed it a couple months later — it had "expired" a month after purchase.
Fortunately, on her particular printer at least, there was an option to ignore the warning, and the cartridge worked fine after that.
Happened to my mother who bought an HP-branded cartridge from ("shipped and sold by") Amazon, then got a warning message when she installed it a couple months later — it had "expired" a month after purchase.
Fortunately, on her particular printer at least, there was an option to ignore the warning, and the cartridge worked fine after that.
Pre-chip Brother laser printers can be found for $50-100 on Craigslist. Will last for a decade of home use if not more. Toner can be refilled or bought aftermarket for under $20.
> Pre-chip
What's the story with the chip?
What's the story with the chip?
The Paperless Revolution will hopefully one day bankrupt Hewlett Packard.
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.
The margins on home inkjet printer sales are not just low, they are typically negative. Which, coupled with incurious/cheap customers makes it very hard for an honest printer manufacturer to compete.
They sell printers at a loss and make the money back on ink sales. You can get printers with refillable ink tanks from all (three) major manufacturers, but they cost significantly more because they aren't subsidized by ink sales
And you have to search for them online or order from various strange places because no major stores where people actually go buy "computer stuff" carry them. Coincidence? I think not.
Worse, even the lot more expensive "office" printers (both laser and inkjets) have been sabotaged by such "driver update for your own good" shenanigans in the past. This isn't limited only to the cheapest disposable inkjet junkers.
Worse, even the lot more expensive "office" printers (both laser and inkjets) have been sabotaged by such "driver update for your own good" shenanigans in the past. This isn't limited only to the cheapest disposable inkjet junkers.
> competition
Oh you sweet summer child. Relevant cartoon, ignoring caption: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U-39iprM4Cs/SfZWFzmSQ-I/AAAAAAAAA...
They ALL do it.
Oh you sweet summer child. Relevant cartoon, ignoring caption: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U-39iprM4Cs/SfZWFzmSQ-I/AAAAAAAAA...
They ALL do it.
On one hand you want consumers and a jury to believe that you have no liability
when bad actors use your bad drivers to run malicious code on their machines while at the same time doing basically the same thing to your own customers.
I really do think there needs to be stricter regulations about how products like these can be advertised. Do you really "own" the printer if the manufacturer can decide what ink you're allowed to put in it after you've already paid for it? It really seems disingenuous to market these prints as "purchases" or something that you "buy" like you would a loaf of bread.
It's not quite "renting", but it's not really "owning" either because when you "buy" it, it's not just yours, but you actually share some degree of ownership of it with the manufacturer.
It's not quite "renting", but it's not really "owning" either because when you "buy" it, it's not just yours, but you actually share some degree of ownership of it with the manufacturer.
Do people still buy HP inkjets? They've been doing this kind of thing for a decade, I'd have thought they should have seen their customerbase wither away by now.
Name recognition is a hell of a drug.
I think Hacker News has enough tech-savvy people who are asked for advice by friends and family to make a dent. Let's make companies regret decisions like this.
Could someone get the EU to mandate a standard interchangeable ink cartridge format to make this nonsense go away?
It would be fascinating to watch how HP responds.
It would be fascinating to watch how HP responds.
"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.
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.
Tomorrow's story should be: Customers "disable" their purchasing of HP printers in favor of cheaper, but not as cheap, rivals.
I decided to stop buying ink cartridges and switched to a monochrome laser printer years ago, but kept the old inkjet printer because it could do scans. I recently had to do a color print. Instead of buying new ink cartridges for my old HP printer, I purchased a new printer from Canon from walmart. Then I gave it away to someone who would use it.
More recently, I decided to buy a color laser printer that can do copying so I do not need the HP anymore and will have the option of doing color prints immediately no matter how many years pass. I brought a Canon. Unlike HP printers, it lets you opt into mechanisms that disable third party toner. I just did some of the first prints with it and it is really nice.
More recently, I decided to buy a color laser printer that can do copying so I do not need the HP anymore and will have the option of doing color prints immediately no matter how many years pass. I brought a Canon. Unlike HP printers, it lets you opt into mechanisms that disable third party toner. I just did some of the first prints with it and it is really nice.
I wish. I will certainly do my part the next time I consider buying a printer but it's been shown again and again that the vast majority of people will always put comfort (and productivity) over ideology. I don't expect any meaningful loss of sales on their part from this.
Sometimes you have to lead them by the neck. Wipe out the company and lock up those responsible for a few decades of real labor.
Seems like there’s one reason to disable HP from one’s life - you never really own what hardware you buy from them.
If inkjet printer “technology” hasn’t evolved in 25 years enough to not have to worry as much about third party ink, they probably aren’t competent at printers.
Or perhaps the corollary that inkjet ink is among the, if not most expensive retail substance per ml/oz.
If inkjet printer “technology” hasn’t evolved in 25 years enough to not have to worry as much about third party ink, they probably aren’t competent at printers.
Or perhaps the corollary that inkjet ink is among the, if not most expensive retail substance per ml/oz.
Happens with their toner cartridges on laser printers too. I bought an HP laser, used some toner carts off Amazon, then got a software update and it wouldn’t recognize the toner carts. Had to replace them with HP cartridges from Staples at much higher cost to get back up and running, which I guess was their goal. Wouldn’t buy another one.
Surely there must be a law against this?
You buy a product capable of using any toner, then the manufacturer disables this feature without your consent to push their own margins up?
You buy a product capable of using any toner, then the manufacturer disables this feature without your consent to push their own margins up?
I'm not sure why a printer should need a firmware update. Even an MFP. Either it does what it's supposed to do when you buy it, or it's not fit for sale, and you return it. It should then just go on doing it's thing until it dies of old age, no?
I wonder if there is anything we can further innovate on? Something that is as good as Colour Laser but much cheaper.
Just don't print stuff. I hardly ever use my printer.
I say this as someone who has spent most of my career working on printing related software.
I say this as someone who has spent most of my career working on printing related software.
I cant. Kid's education and Work related things still requires printing. And actually I have grown much more fond of printing things out in paper rather than keeping it digital as I age. I still print about 10-20 page a month.
This is one of the reasons I’ve been meaning to switch to a Brother printer for a while - just waiting for my current HP all-in-one to die (I need a scanner, and until a few years ago also needed a fax).
Fortunately we don’t print that much stuff anymore, even with kids’ assignments.
Fortunately we don’t print that much stuff anymore, even with kids’ assignments.
Can't you just return it? It worked until the upgrade, then it didn't, the update took away a functionality you bought it for, so you can either request a downgrade to a working firmware or a refund?
It would be an interesting case for courts indeed and solve a lot of future problems for consumers.
It would be an interesting case for courts indeed and solve a lot of future problems for consumers.
If people stop buying these printers, then you're voting with your wallet. But people won't. They continue to buy these printers and HP will continue to do this as their sales are telling them it's good.
I accept there is more to this than that, but it's the first step.
I accept there is more to this than that, but it's the first step.
I'm curious if this significantly hinges on the validity of EULAs, especially ones with onerous terms.
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.
* 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.
Anecdata about the same model:
I have had a Brother MFC-L3750CDW for 3.5 years, and have printed over 5000 pages.
Even though I always use third party toners, I haven't seen that color registration issue.
Just now, I just went to the printer and let it do the 'calibration' and 'registration' steps. Then I printed a test image from the internet. None of the colours are offset.
I have had a Brother MFC-L3750CDW for 3.5 years, and have printed over 5000 pages.
Even though I always use third party toners, I haven't seen that color registration issue.
Just now, I just went to the printer and let it do the 'calibration' and 'registration' steps. Then I printed a test image from the internet. None of the colours are offset.
Ask your parents, but be ware that it will take a few years for that to pay off.
Oh wait, you meant...
Oh wait, you meant...
What they've managed to achieve with this is that I'll never buy an HP printer ever again.
Kyocera seems to make decent laser jets. I bought a kyocera P2235dw a while back, and it was easy to get CUPS on linux and MacOS to recognize it and use it. Kyocera makes a PPD file for linux available. My P2235dw is a bit noisier than some, but it's not bad.
[deleted]
> the company also blocks the use of rival cartridges in order to “maintain the integrity of our printing systems, and protect our intellectual property”.
One might have thought that the basic IP on ink expired somewhen in the 12th century.
One might have thought that the basic IP on ink expired somewhen in the 12th century.
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.
You could just not buy an HP printer.
I use older Brother laserjet printers that I bought secondhand. A pack of 2 off-brand toner cartridges are about $20 on ebay.
Enough people are dumb enough to overpay for ink that HP stays in business. Jailing a CEO won't cure stupidity.
I use older Brother laserjet printers that I bought secondhand. A pack of 2 off-brand toner cartridges are about $20 on ebay.
Enough people are dumb enough to overpay for ink that HP stays in business. Jailing a CEO won't cure stupidity.
Louis Rossman had a video about exactly this kind of attitude, and he persuaded me that it's not a good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN44n_F_CPo
Please do watch it.
His point is that this kind of horrible kind of practices corrupt and spread through industries so they need to be dealt with ASAP if you want to prevent it becoming standard.
Besides, you can't be savvy about all fields. Sure, you know about printers, but how many other facets of life you're NOT familiar with and you're duped in making choices that disadvantages you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN44n_F_CPo
Please do watch it.
His point is that this kind of horrible kind of practices corrupt and spread through industries so they need to be dealt with ASAP if you want to prevent it becoming standard.
Besides, you can't be savvy about all fields. Sure, you know about printers, but how many other facets of life you're NOT familiar with and you're duped in making choices that disadvantages you.
Louis Rossman has a business interest to say that. Interestingly, if you try asking him to fix a Dell laptop that was a gift from a deceased relative, he will refuse, no matter how much you are willing to pay. I know this from experience.
Maybe. But that does not invalidate what he's saying here. Sure, scrutinize it, counter it. But I find what he said to make sense.
I stopped buying HP anything. And startups and others I work with I encourage to purchase Brother laser printers. HP is dead to me. Not only this crap, but Brother makes more reliable and better priced/cost of ownership printers.
Do you actually own a printer? Since 10+ years I print stuff either at work or in hotel. If it's pictures, I print them in some printing company with some nice ICC profile I got from them.
Owning a printer in XXI century is waste of time.
Owning a printer in XXI century is waste of time.
Serious question, would re-filling an original HP cartridge do the trick? I am considering buying a printer myself and the two most popular ones seem to be Brother and HP. I have however read Brother is doing similar tactics.
My suggestion is to announce a hackathon with sweat amount and brainstorm ideas on how to make money with the current state. Disabling printers is not a smart move, this will force people to look for workarounds.
Why is there CODE running inside of an ink cartridge in the first place?!?! Let alone code that's sophisticated enough that "cheaper rivals" can't just copy it. What is going on in this world?
I believe this is explicitly illegal in France under the country’s environment and e-waste law. Apple got in trouble because batterygate was interpreted as planned obsolescence, which is forbidden.
This is an antitrust violation right? An anticompetitive practice
If you're going to use corporate fines, they'll need to be per instance and massive or large corporations like HP will just pay the fine and keep doing it.
I know this has been asked a million times but when are we going to get a great printer company? Right now we have to settle for the least bad manufacturer.
I thought all brands used this eco system now with little tanks you can just pour ink in? That's all I see in the shops now.
But I just have an old b/w laser
But I just have an old b/w laser
I have a Canon MegaTank printer G6020. It comes with more ink than I can print in a lifetime. I've had it for two years and the ink is maybe down 1%. The only problem is I only print a couple pages every few weeks and so I guess the ink dries out and then the head gets clogged, I assume. Cleaning the heads can sometimes help, but it doesn't always work, and only works once or twice and then it's clogged forever. It happened to my printer and a relative's. We are each missing one color. One of us is missing cyan and the other yellow, I think. We can still print in black and white though since the black color is still working. If it wasn't for that major flaw, they would be great printers. The quality and features are very good. The price was great considering how long the ink should last.
Also, when you clean the heads it ends up dumping the ink in a foam pad in the back of the printer, and that fills up and turns into a mess. I haven't looked at my pad, but that's what I saw on some YouTube videos.
Also, when you clean the heads it ends up dumping the ink in a foam pad in the back of the printer, and that fills up and turns into a mess. I haven't looked at my pad, but that's what I saw on some YouTube videos.
Yup that's why I bought a laser. They don't dry out (though in exceptionally high humidity the opposite can happen where the toner starts clumping up). But generally for a one page a month scenario laser really kills inkjets for that reason.
Really nice for boarding passes too as the ink doesn't run when it gets wet. I know, electronic but stuff like that I prefer to have a hardcopy of.
But really if you print photo quality stuff weekly inkjet is unbeatable especially with these new tanks. I've not seen a color laser that prints acceptable photos.
Really nice for boarding passes too as the ink doesn't run when it gets wet. I know, electronic but stuff like that I prefer to have a hardcopy of.
But really if you print photo quality stuff weekly inkjet is unbeatable especially with these new tanks. I've not seen a color laser that prints acceptable photos.
I thought it was only epson. But it seems that cannon and hp offer bottle-fed printers, too.
I'm glad they are still asking for permission to upgrade the firmware. I was successful at declining that for a year or so already.
My guess is they're trying to squeeze more revenue because fewer people are buying and regularly using printers.
Cost of a new printer $100, cost of 2 HP cartridges… $85
So it’s easy, just buy a new printer one from a non-criminal company.
So it’s easy, just buy a new printer one from a non-criminal company.
Jailbreaking and hardware-hacking printers is starting to sound like it could be a whole lot of fun, actually
My HP printer was about as expensive as a couple of cartridges. They are the McDonalds of printers.
Good to know. No HP for me, when I will buy a replacement printer.
I like brother printers.
Is it possible to like a printer? Frustration, irritation and anger would summarise my feelings about them.
I liked my 1993-model LaserJet 4 until I realized what it was doing to my electric bill. I'd probably still be using it otherwise. Built to survive nuclear Armageddon.
The only tougher printer was the LaserJet 3 it replaced, which was built to survive an asteroid strike.
The only tougher printer was the LaserJet 3 it replaced, which was built to survive an asteroid strike.
How is this news? HP has been doing this for a long time.
Yeah, they’re on my list of brands to not buy any more.
Because printers are sold at a loss.
great job hp, keep annoying customers that will work!
well, this is direction the world is heading in
[deleted]
Boycott HP
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.