4 ms·

There are plenty of companies from which you can buy printers that don't do this shit. Just don't buy HP products. Problem solved. Of course I also think that t

There are plenty of companies from which you can buy printers that don't do this shit. Just don't buy HP products. Problem solved. Of course I also think that this practice should be illegal, but you're overstating the problem by a fair margin.

lopmotr 6y ago
Changing the terms yea, but the practice of selling things as services, no. People are shocked at first because they couldn't imagine ink was a service but eventually, it'll become normal and nobody will get ripped off.
kbenson 6y ago
The solution to companies continuously eroding our rights to own things by first moving to licensing for digital goods long ago, and now moving to licensing for physical goods, is not to just ignore it and use another company, because them doing this allows them to extract more money than they otherwise wood, making this a lucrative strategy. Strategies that make money don't go away. The way to deal with business practices that harm the consumer or public is to regulate or legislate them in some way. This is why we don't allow child labor. We didn't just tell people "well, choose a company that doesn't employ little children".
- ballenf 6y ago
  Antitrust enforcement would also help. Also anti-competitive patent cross-licensing agreements create a virtual cartel of printer companies. The patent deals started with HP, Canon and IBM having a cross-license. Lexmark inherited that deal and was able to enter the market after it spun out from IBM but took the printer patent licenses with it. Things evolved a lot since then, but the same tactics are employed to keep out new entrants.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  I don't agree. If this detestable practice causes a lot of people go buy Brother printers, then HP will make less money, not more. It seems like your whole argument rests on this flawed notion that licensing practices are always more profitable, but it just isn't true. They might be unit profitable, but it doesn't help if you move much fewer units.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > If this detestable practice causes a lot of people go buy Brother printers, then HP will make less money, not more. Except that Brother can do the same if they want. Also, lets me clear to talk about profit, and not sales, as "money they make" can be interpreted either way, and locking someone into your product is a classic way to increase profit. Even if brother sells twice as many printers, and makes three times as much money in profit on hardware sales, are they really better off than HP if HP is making even more money by locking people into ink sales and making 6x the hardware cost on ink? Vilifying behavior doesn't incentivize companies to stop doing it, it incentivizes them to keep the public from learning about it or making it so they can't do anything about it once they do. Capitalism and the free market are predicated on accurate information that people can assess in a timely manner. When that breaks down in some way, whether it be negative information being hidden until it's too late or information that is just very hard for the average person to acquire and assess, that's where the government comes in. > They might be unit profitable, but it doesn't help if you move much fewer units. It depends entirely on how much more profitable each unit might be, and how much having guaranteed ink sales can be used to leverage other opportunities, and other opportunities that may come up from having a captive customer base.

lopmotr 6y ago

Changing the terms yea, but the practice of selling things as services, no. People are shocked at first because they couldn't imagine ink was a service but eventually, it'll become normal and nobody will get ripped off.

kbenson 6y ago

The solution to companies continuously eroding our rights to own things by first moving to licensing for digital goods long ago, and now moving to licensing for physical goods, is not to just ignore it and use another company, because them doing this allows them to extract more money than they otherwise wood, making this a lucrative strategy. Strategies that make money don't go away. The way to deal with business practices that harm the consumer or public is to regulate or legislate them in some way. This is why we don't allow child labor. We didn't just tell people "well, choose a company that doesn't employ little children".

ballenf 6y ago
Antitrust enforcement would also help. Also anti-competitive patent cross-licensing agreements create a virtual cartel of printer companies. The patent deals started with HP, Canon and IBM having a cross-license. Lexmark inherited that deal and was able to enter the market after it spun out from IBM but took the printer patent licenses with it. Things evolved a lot since then, but the same tactics are employed to keep out new entrants.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I don't agree. If this detestable practice causes a lot of people go buy Brother printers, then HP will make less money, not more. It seems like your whole argument rests on this flawed notion that licensing practices are always more profitable, but it just isn't true. They might be unit profitable, but it doesn't help if you move much fewer units.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > If this detestable practice causes a lot of people go buy Brother printers, then HP will make less money, not more. Except that Brother can do the same if they want. Also, lets me clear to talk about profit, and not sales, as "money they make" can be interpreted either way, and locking someone into your product is a classic way to increase profit. Even if brother sells twice as many printers, and makes three times as much money in profit on hardware sales, are they really better off than HP if HP is making even more money by locking people into ink sales and making 6x the hardware cost on ink? Vilifying behavior doesn't incentivize companies to stop doing it, it incentivizes them to keep the public from learning about it or making it so they can't do anything about it once they do. Capitalism and the free market are predicated on accurate information that people can assess in a timely manner. When that breaks down in some way, whether it be negative information being hidden until it's too late or information that is just very hard for the average person to acquire and assess, that's where the government comes in. > They might be unit profitable, but it doesn't help if you move much fewer units. It depends entirely on how much more profitable each unit might be, and how much having guaranteed ink sales can be used to leverage other opportunities, and other opportunities that may come up from having a captive customer base.