4 ms·

Now now, let's not get into poor arguments and logical fallacies. First off, read the rest of my comment, there is more to it. Second, you pose an interesting

Now now, let's not get into poor arguments and logical fallacies. First off, read the rest of my comment, there is more to it. Second, you pose an interesting question. I am assuming this isn't what you did, but let's pretend for a moment that it really is what you did. Let's also assume that HP printers let you use your cheaper ink. Again, you start printing things with your cheaper ink and suddenly your papers are bleeding onto the back of the next page as they sit in the printer tray. Your photo prints don't come out looking like the photos on your screen or your phone. Your prints fade easily. Your prints don't hold up to even a small amount of water dripping on them. Your ink cartridge heads start to gunk up and won't print. Now what do you do? Do realize that you bought cheap ink and that the ink you bought it not up to the quality you wanted? Do you call the cheaper ink manufacturer and complain? Or do you call up HP and complain their your printer breaks? You are a smart engineer. You would realize that you did not buy a quality ink product and you got what you paid for. But would everyone?

threepipeproblm 10y ago
>> How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP? It makes my perspective that HP thinks its customers very stupid even stronger... since your comment implies that they charge dramatically more for their on-brand inks than for off-brand inks without adding any extra value. Apparently you think that HP sells ink at roughly the same price as gold (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-the-other-black-gold http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-t...) not because of anti-consumer practices, but because they are trying to protect consumers. And when they do sell it at a lower rate, under a different name, it's to protect the consumers who are too stupid to buy HP's good on-brand ink from ruining their printers. How noble. You and HP seem to think that, although cars with tens of thousands of components can somehow continue to run even when consumers are stupid enough to buy aftermarket parts, that printer consumers are too stupid to make a decision about 1 part -- even with the aid of state-of-the art ratings systems that allow them to instantly share any problems with the buying community. Incidentally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy or say they have a "poor argument" without bothering to point why, is just a form of name calling directed at the (actual) argument rather than the person. It's a non-argument.
- trcollinson 10y ago
  My apologies, the fallacy used was ad hominem. By casting doubt on my comment by saying that I have Stockholm Syndrome he is overtly attacking my character by pointing out a psychological issue he perceives that I have, comparing my time with HP to, evidently, kidnapping and being a hostage. That's a poor argument. I should have made it more obvious. They actually charge exactly the same for all of their ink per ounce (with the variable being the type of ink not the method of distribution), and frankly it is quite a lot more than even what was pointed out in the npr reference you show. A number of their inks make more per ounce than just about anything you can imagine. The reason the off-brand ink refilling cost is less than a new cartridge from a display has to do with packaging and distribution. HP has not figured out any magical way to get away from market forces. When they sell the authorized refill supplies, it is just ink, syringes, and instructions. No cartridge, no packaging, no marketing, no shipping. Also, I don't believe I made myself clear enough. HP isn't trying to protect consumers. They are attempting to protect themselves from consumers. Remember I said "The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings." This isn't some argument to try to protect consumers. HP is out for their bottom line, plain and simple. That is not surprising to me. Your car argument is interesting. The car maintenance industry is absolutely giant. I don't know about your car, but if I pick the wrong oil, the wrong filter, the wrong fluids in general, or the wrong part, my car stops working. And if I pick the wrong thing in a number of categories my warranty also stops working and if I take it back to the manufacturer, they don't fix it. I can use state of the art ratings systems, that is true, to decide if my purchase will, on the whole, be a good one. That is true.
chefandy 10y ago
The fact that HP can't get a handle on their service/returns budget isn't their customers' fault. Having problems with things like after-market parts, 3rd party repairs, and home-spun modifications is not a problem unique to HP, or printers. If HP was more interested in reducing their service/RMA costs than forcing someone who owns a $55 printer to buy $40 ink refills, they would have developed an electronic tamper indicator rather than a kill switch.

threepipeproblm 10y ago

>> How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP? It makes my perspective that HP thinks its customers very stupid even stronger... since your comment implies that they charge dramatically more for their on-brand inks than for off-brand inks without adding any extra value. Apparently you think that HP sells ink at roughly the same price as gold (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-the-other-black-gold http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-t...) not because of anti-consumer practices, but because they are trying to protect consumers. And when they do sell it at a lower rate, under a different name, it's to protect the consumers who are too stupid to buy HP's good on-brand ink from ruining their printers. How noble. You and HP seem to think that, although cars with tens of thousands of components can somehow continue to run even when consumers are stupid enough to buy aftermarket parts, that printer consumers are too stupid to make a decision about 1 part -- even with the aid of state-of-the art ratings systems that allow them to instantly share any problems with the buying community. Incidentally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy or say they have a "poor argument" without bothering to point why, is just a form of name calling directed at the (actual) argument rather than the person. It's a non-argument.

trcollinson 10y ago
My apologies, the fallacy used was ad hominem. By casting doubt on my comment by saying that I have Stockholm Syndrome he is overtly attacking my character by pointing out a psychological issue he perceives that I have, comparing my time with HP to, evidently, kidnapping and being a hostage. That's a poor argument. I should have made it more obvious. They actually charge exactly the same for all of their ink per ounce (with the variable being the type of ink not the method of distribution), and frankly it is quite a lot more than even what was pointed out in the npr reference you show. A number of their inks make more per ounce than just about anything you can imagine. The reason the off-brand ink refilling cost is less than a new cartridge from a display has to do with packaging and distribution. HP has not figured out any magical way to get away from market forces. When they sell the authorized refill supplies, it is just ink, syringes, and instructions. No cartridge, no packaging, no marketing, no shipping. Also, I don't believe I made myself clear enough. HP isn't trying to protect consumers. They are attempting to protect themselves from consumers. Remember I said "The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings." This isn't some argument to try to protect consumers. HP is out for their bottom line, plain and simple. That is not surprising to me. Your car argument is interesting. The car maintenance industry is absolutely giant. I don't know about your car, but if I pick the wrong oil, the wrong filter, the wrong fluids in general, or the wrong part, my car stops working. And if I pick the wrong thing in a number of categories my warranty also stops working and if I take it back to the manufacturer, they don't fix it. I can use state of the art ratings systems, that is true, to decide if my purchase will, on the whole, be a good one. That is true.

chefandy 10y ago

The fact that HP can't get a handle on their service/returns budget isn't their customers' fault. Having problems with things like after-market parts, 3rd party repairs, and home-spun modifications is not a problem unique to HP, or printers. If HP was more interested in reducing their service/RMA costs than forcing someone who owns a $55 printer to buy $40 ink refills, they would have developed an electronic tamper indicator rather than a kill switch.