4 ms·

I can understand HP wanting to prevent their customers from being conned into buying false cartridges, or wanting to ensure the best possible experience for cus

by bArray 6y ago

I can understand HP wanting to prevent their customers from being conned into buying false cartridges, or wanting to ensure the best possible experience for customers. But. Is it not enough to bring up a dialogue or warning telling the user it's false and they are breaking warranty, rather than outright disabling the cartridge? This seems like HP is acting anti-competitively, such that a third party would struggle to feasibly make a part for the printer. Reasons that a third party may make a non-official part: * It's cheaper * It improves on HP design (flaws) * It offers some additional functionality not provided by standard parts * They offer support past HPs official support, preventing contribution of e-waste

simias 6y ago
Your willingness to entertain the thought that HP may be acting on behalf of their customer's best interests is certainly commendable, but I don't think HP deserves it. It's common knowledge that ink cartridges are a racket and the real money maker for printer manufacturers. I have absolutely zero doubt that this move was only done in order to coerce their users into buying ridiculously overpriced first-party cartridges.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  I don't want to give them any tips but they could allow 3rd party ink but then intentionally make the printer spew the ink around in smudges and with color streaks etc when it think the ink is 3rd party. This would ruin the reputation of 3rd party ink and make people "learn" that they have to buy branded ink to get acceptable prints.
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
> This seems like HP is acting anti-competitively I believe that they are and that it's not just a feeling. Some of their printers also used to tell your cartridges were empty before they were. Printer breaks very fast and support don't really help you: https://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/matronix/index.php?20200603_070634_Pourquoi_j___ai_resilie_mon_abonnement_HP_Instant_Ink https://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/matronix/index.php?20200... (french). Their policy on recurring payment is also pretty damning: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-b...
GekkePrutser 6y ago
> I can understand HP wanting to prevent their customers from being conned into buying false cartridges, or wanting to ensure the best possible experience for customers. Nah, that's just the marketing PR blurb they attach to this stuff. The real reason is $$$, nothing else.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Sometimes I think "but won't this hurt them in the long term? After dealing with HP printers I get nautious when looking at an HP logo, I get this bracing defensive adversarial feeling, this can't be good for a brand". But then I realize I'm not a typical consumer, and most of us aren't, here on HN. Do typical consumers even have the vocabulary and mental concepts in place (the basics you learn in e.g. free software philosophy, right to repair movement, etc). I think most people don't. They just see that "Hm, the machine says this ink is bad. Damn those guys who sold it to me! I guess I can only trust genuine HP products." I don't think normal people's reaction is to suspect malevolent marketing and updates. I think when people don't have a good mental model of what is going on they will just take it at face value and therefore the HP brand won't suffer much damage even in the long term.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    I really doubt that... In my environment (from helping people with their computers) I regularly hear things like "Damn HP, wanting €80 for a set of tiny ink cartridges". And most people know very well how to find their aftermarket ink, either in the shop or online. None of them think what they're buying is official. Sometimes (but rarely) really cheap ink does cause printer problems, but even then it's worth the risk. An Inkjet is pretty much "total loss" after the first ink change anyway (a full cartridge set costs close to what the printer is worth). I always advise Epson EcoTank ones for inkjet use (though these are pretty pricey) and Brother for laser (which besides not being bound to expensive toners are actually some of the cheapest printers around too). For most people a simple B/W laser is sufficient anyway (and just to order photos online). But they often end up falling for Canon, Lexmark or HP again because they're just cheap and fall for their marketing even though they were bitten by extremely overpriced cartridges before... <facepalm>
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
> But. Is it not enough to bring up a dialogue or warning telling the user it's false and they are breaking warranty, rather than outright disabling the cartridge? Nope; their business model is cartridges and ink, not so much printers. 3rd party cartridges impacts their bottom line. There's a few companies who have consumables as their business model, Keurig is another that added "DRM"-like features to their stuff. Juicero tried it with an extremely overbuilt, but ultimately stupid device with overpriced bags of fruit as the consumables.
criddell 6y ago
In the US, I believe the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents HP from voiding your warranty for using third party cartridges.

by bArray 6y ago

simias 6y ago

Your willingness to entertain the thought that HP may be acting on behalf of their customer's best interests is certainly commendable, but I don't think HP deserves it. It's common knowledge that ink cartridges are a racket and the real money maker for printer manufacturers. I have absolutely zero doubt that this move was only done in order to coerce their users into buying ridiculously overpriced first-party cartridges.

bonoboTP 6y ago
I don't want to give them any tips but they could allow 3rd party ink but then intentionally make the printer spew the ink around in smudges and with color streaks etc when it think the ink is 3rd party. This would ruin the reputation of 3rd party ink and make people "learn" that they have to buy branded ink to get acceptable prints.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

> This seems like HP is acting anti-competitively I believe that they are and that it's not just a feeling. Some of their printers also used to tell your cartridges were empty before they were. Printer breaks very fast and support don't really help you: https://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/matronix/index.php?20200603_070634_Pourquoi_j___ai_resilie_mon_abonnement_HP_Instant_Ink https://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/matronix/index.php?20200... (french). Their policy on recurring payment is also pretty damning: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-b...

GekkePrutser 6y ago

> I can understand HP wanting to prevent their customers from being conned into buying false cartridges, or wanting to ensure the best possible experience for customers. Nah, that's just the marketing PR blurb they attach to this stuff. The real reason is $$$, nothing else.

bonoboTP 6y ago
Sometimes I think "but won't this hurt them in the long term? After dealing with HP printers I get nautious when looking at an HP logo, I get this bracing defensive adversarial feeling, this can't be good for a brand". But then I realize I'm not a typical consumer, and most of us aren't, here on HN. Do typical consumers even have the vocabulary and mental concepts in place (the basics you learn in e.g. free software philosophy, right to repair movement, etc). I think most people don't. They just see that "Hm, the machine says this ink is bad. Damn those guys who sold it to me! I guess I can only trust genuine HP products." I don't think normal people's reaction is to suspect malevolent marketing and updates. I think when people don't have a good mental model of what is going on they will just take it at face value and therefore the HP brand won't suffer much damage even in the long term.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  I really doubt that... In my environment (from helping people with their computers) I regularly hear things like "Damn HP, wanting €80 for a set of tiny ink cartridges". And most people know very well how to find their aftermarket ink, either in the shop or online. None of them think what they're buying is official. Sometimes (but rarely) really cheap ink does cause printer problems, but even then it's worth the risk. An Inkjet is pretty much "total loss" after the first ink change anyway (a full cartridge set costs close to what the printer is worth). I always advise Epson EcoTank ones for inkjet use (though these are pretty pricey) and Brother for laser (which besides not being bound to expensive toners are actually some of the cheapest printers around too). For most people a simple B/W laser is sufficient anyway (and just to order photos online). But they often end up falling for Canon, Lexmark or HP again because they're just cheap and fall for their marketing even though they were bitten by extremely overpriced cartridges before... <facepalm>

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

> But. Is it not enough to bring up a dialogue or warning telling the user it's false and they are breaking warranty, rather than outright disabling the cartridge? Nope; their business model is cartridges and ink, not so much printers. 3rd party cartridges impacts their bottom line. There's a few companies who have consumables as their business model, Keurig is another that added "DRM"-like features to their stuff. Juicero tried it with an extremely overbuilt, but ultimately stupid device with overpriced bags of fruit as the consumables.

criddell 6y ago

In the US, I believe the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents HP from voiding your warranty for using third party cartridges.