6 ms·

> What do you expect to happen when you sign up for the subscription ink? If you don't pay for your subscription, the ink stops working. I expect them to stop

> What do you expect to happen when you sign up for the subscription ink? If you don't pay for your subscription, the ink stops working. I expect them to stop sending me more when I stop paying, not to sabotage what I had left.

Ferret7446 4y ago
Then you really should read the terms before signing up.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Should people be allowed to sell their organs? How about selling themselves into slavery or indentured servitude? Unless your answer is "yes to both", you agree that there is a line somewhere for things that aren't okay just because you entered into a contract that said they were, and it's just a matter of defining where that line is.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    How can you sell yourself into slavery? Slavery is forced. if you volunteered you’re not a slave.
    - Y_Y 4y ago
      Factually untrue. There are plenty of historical examples of mechanisms for voluntarily becoming a slave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
    - simiones 4y ago
      Once you sell yourself, you become a slave, and have no option of reverting back to freedom. It's really not a hard concept.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      It's called "indentured servitude". You get paid a lump sum up-front, then work for nothing for some number of years. In Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance, Frederick is indentured to a band of pirates until his 21st birthday.
      - addingnumbers 4y ago
        > In Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance, Frederick is indentured to a band of pirates until his 21st birthday. That particular wording coming back around to bite him when it's pointed out that he was born on February 29th in a leap year...
  - sneak 4y ago
    Yes to both. Why shouldn't people get to decide what happens to the one thing that is unambiguously their own? My body, my choice.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      If it were legal to sell yourself into slavery (as it once was), we know what would happen: A lot of companies would try to push people into the position where people would feel they had no other choice to become slaves, and companies would position themselves to take advantage of this fact. We would then have a permanent class of slaves in the world, which would dehumanize them and gradually freeze the hearts of everybody who was made to interact with this system. We know this would happen because it did happen. And it was a long road for humanity as a whole to get rid of it (and we still haven’t completely). And you would throw it all away because of some personal libertarian principle? This isn’t only about what you would like to be able to do in any given moment, it’s what this ability does to society as a whole. Your ability to someday be able to sell yourself into slavery has some value (for the principle of the thing, if nothing else), but it is certainly not worth the above-mentioned effects on society. (Repost of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131936>, from two years ago.)
      - LadyCailin 4y ago
        Libertarianism is like communism. Looks fantastic on paper, but is god awful in practice.
        kwhitefoot 4y ago
        I'm not at all sure that either looks good even on paper!
    - mcv 4y ago
      But by selling it, becomes not their own anymore. I find it weird to use freedom as a justification to destroy freedom.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  - SkyBelow 4y ago
    I don't think this is a fair comparison. They are selling a service starting at $1 to give you ink cartridges with limits on their use. This isn't some technical gotcha or trick. Sure, there is likely some UI underhandedness that tricks people into signing up for this, and that should be called out, but the business model is not inherently abusive. People thinking they can pay $1, get an ink cartridge, and then cancel the subscription and keep the ink cartridge to use are having unrealistic expectations of a service.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > People thinking they can pay $1, get an ink cartridge, and then cancel the subscription and keep the ink cartridge to use are having unrealistic expectations of a service. What if I pay $1, run the ink cartridge dry the first day, then immediately cancel?
      - SkyBelow 4y ago
        I looked up pricing. Seems like their cheapest plan will charge you another $1 for every 10 pages (which is more expensive than buying a higher tier).
  - s3p 4y ago
    Yes to both. done. although HN will downvote any yes replies to this comment because it challenges the premise of OP's point.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    People are not allowed to sell their organs because it would make illegal organ harvesting harder for law enforcement to catch. People are not allowed to sell themselves into indentured servitude because it would be impossible to prove that someone agreed to it. So yes, you're right, there are things you're not allowed to agree to, for the good of society. Are you seriously suggesting that not being allowed to rent ink is in some way comparable?
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  No, no, no - companies should make the major aspects obvious up front. If anything said "buy" rather than "rent, with remote deactivation" then the company made it unclear on purpose.
k8sToGo 4y ago
With this service you are not paying for the ink. You are paying for printed pages. Technically you are just renting the ink. I use this service for years. I use the legacy free plan and have been printing for free for years.
- nosianu 4y ago
  > With this service you are not paying for the ink. As soon as somebody develops the technology they will make all the ink on your already printed documents turn invisible too. It's only half a joke, if this becomes feasible I'm sure the business and marketing folks will have some urgent meetings to bring this along ASAP. Our financials focused system is good at exerting pressure for people to do stuff, anything, but it fails miserably in promoting reason, instead creating narrow minds narrowly focused on The System itself rather than on the broad set of inputs our minds were originally evolution-made to handle. No wonder that than in turn those narrow minds are much more easily replaced by automated processes. We keep calling people disregarding their humanity "bad people", but we never discuss the incredible pressures we put on people in the first place. If somebody doesn't focus on the financials we call them lazy and failures and many refuse to support them, we force people to think - and act - that way. Sure, in theory money could be made in better ways than, for example, "extracting value" from people who urgently need some drug, but fact is that this is not nearly as easy as it sounds, with much of the basic needs already in well-established hands and things people really need very complex to fulfill. Individuals and organizations with little capital can mostly only find some local niche, if even that. "You don't need to be an asshole" (to make money) is one of those "works for anyone" but it does not scale to "everyone". Even small local mini-entrepreneurs often have to rely on tricks and cheating and using the inexperience and lack of knowledge of their customers. So, when we look at such developments, please, let's not stop at "those are horrible people". Just look back at the explanations for why Pizarro's was so brutal, if I read that correctly the conquerors themselves were put under huge pressure due to... debt. We can't expect people to act ethically, to their own big disadvantage, while having to live in a highly competitive system that forces them to make money.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
SkyBelow 4y ago
I don't think that's an adequate comparison to what they are selling. If I rent a car and stop paying for it, if I were to say "I expect them to leave me with the car I rented and just not provide a replacement when it needs to be replaced" people would look at me like I was trolling. The nature of renting a car, and the prices involved in renting vs buying are great enough that people understand the market. With ink, they are doing something similar. You aren't paying $1/month (their lowest tier plan) to buy a cartridge of ink until it runs out. That pricing would be unreasonable compared to the current market price of ink (regardless of what that market price should be if we had better competition). Anyone thinking they found a hack to get HP to give them ink cartridges for $1 is like my example thinking I found a slightly used 2022 car for $500 because I can rent it and then stop paying and get to keep the car. In this specific case, they aren't taking the ink back, not worth it, and instead creating waste by disabling it. We could say there market shouldn't exist and outlaw it to reduce waste, but that's a different argument than to argue they are selling you a cartridge of ink (technically 2+ for black and color) for $1.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  What's the difference between these two cases? 1. Pay $1 for a subscription, print like crazy until your first set of cartridges are empty, then immediately cancel 2. Pay $1 for a subscription, immediately cancel, then keep printing with your first set of cartridges until they're empty Today, HP allows 1 but not 2. Why?
  - SkyBelow 4y ago
    You pay $1 for 10 pages and then they charge per page after that. You will end up paying more than just buying a cartridge if you tried 1.

Ferret7446 4y ago

Then you really should read the terms before signing up.

josephcsible 4y ago
Should people be allowed to sell their organs? How about selling themselves into slavery or indentured servitude? Unless your answer is "yes to both", you agree that there is a line somewhere for things that aren't okay just because you entered into a contract that said they were, and it's just a matter of defining where that line is.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  How can you sell yourself into slavery? Slavery is forced. if you volunteered you’re not a slave.
  - Y_Y 4y ago
    Factually untrue. There are plenty of historical examples of mechanisms for voluntarily becoming a slave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
  - simiones 4y ago
    Once you sell yourself, you become a slave, and have no option of reverting back to freedom. It's really not a hard concept.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    It's called "indentured servitude". You get paid a lump sum up-front, then work for nothing for some number of years. In Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance, Frederick is indentured to a band of pirates until his 21st birthday.
    - addingnumbers 4y ago
      > In Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance, Frederick is indentured to a band of pirates until his 21st birthday. That particular wording coming back around to bite him when it's pointed out that he was born on February 29th in a leap year...
- sneak 4y ago
  Yes to both. Why shouldn't people get to decide what happens to the one thing that is unambiguously their own? My body, my choice.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    If it were legal to sell yourself into slavery (as it once was), we know what would happen: A lot of companies would try to push people into the position where people would feel they had no other choice to become slaves, and companies would position themselves to take advantage of this fact. We would then have a permanent class of slaves in the world, which would dehumanize them and gradually freeze the hearts of everybody who was made to interact with this system. We know this would happen because it did happen. And it was a long road for humanity as a whole to get rid of it (and we still haven’t completely). And you would throw it all away because of some personal libertarian principle? This isn’t only about what you would like to be able to do in any given moment, it’s what this ability does to society as a whole. Your ability to someday be able to sell yourself into slavery has some value (for the principle of the thing, if nothing else), but it is certainly not worth the above-mentioned effects on society. (Repost of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131936>, from two years ago.)
    - LadyCailin 4y ago
      Libertarianism is like communism. Looks fantastic on paper, but is god awful in practice.
      - kwhitefoot 4y ago
        I'm not at all sure that either looks good even on paper!
  - mcv 4y ago
    But by selling it, becomes not their own anymore. I find it weird to use freedom as a justification to destroy freedom.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
- SkyBelow 4y ago
  I don't think this is a fair comparison. They are selling a service starting at $1 to give you ink cartridges with limits on their use. This isn't some technical gotcha or trick. Sure, there is likely some UI underhandedness that tricks people into signing up for this, and that should be called out, but the business model is not inherently abusive. People thinking they can pay $1, get an ink cartridge, and then cancel the subscription and keep the ink cartridge to use are having unrealistic expectations of a service.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > People thinking they can pay $1, get an ink cartridge, and then cancel the subscription and keep the ink cartridge to use are having unrealistic expectations of a service. What if I pay $1, run the ink cartridge dry the first day, then immediately cancel?
    - SkyBelow 4y ago
      I looked up pricing. Seems like their cheapest plan will charge you another $1 for every 10 pages (which is more expensive than buying a higher tier).
- s3p 4y ago
  Yes to both. done. although HN will downvote any yes replies to this comment because it challenges the premise of OP's point.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  People are not allowed to sell their organs because it would make illegal organ harvesting harder for law enforcement to catch. People are not allowed to sell themselves into indentured servitude because it would be impossible to prove that someone agreed to it. So yes, you're right, there are things you're not allowed to agree to, for the good of society. Are you seriously suggesting that not being allowed to rent ink is in some way comparable?
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
No, no, no - companies should make the major aspects obvious up front. If anything said "buy" rather than "rent, with remote deactivation" then the company made it unclear on purpose.

k8sToGo 4y ago

With this service you are not paying for the ink. You are paying for printed pages. Technically you are just renting the ink. I use this service for years. I use the legacy free plan and have been printing for free for years.

nosianu 4y ago
> With this service you are not paying for the ink. As soon as somebody develops the technology they will make all the ink on your already printed documents turn invisible too. It's only half a joke, if this becomes feasible I'm sure the business and marketing folks will have some urgent meetings to bring this along ASAP. Our financials focused system is good at exerting pressure for people to do stuff, anything, but it fails miserably in promoting reason, instead creating narrow minds narrowly focused on The System itself rather than on the broad set of inputs our minds were originally evolution-made to handle. No wonder that than in turn those narrow minds are much more easily replaced by automated processes. We keep calling people disregarding their humanity "bad people", but we never discuss the incredible pressures we put on people in the first place. If somebody doesn't focus on the financials we call them lazy and failures and many refuse to support them, we force people to think - and act - that way. Sure, in theory money could be made in better ways than, for example, "extracting value" from people who urgently need some drug, but fact is that this is not nearly as easy as it sounds, with much of the basic needs already in well-established hands and things people really need very complex to fulfill. Individuals and organizations with little capital can mostly only find some local niche, if even that. "You don't need to be an asshole" (to make money) is one of those "works for anyone" but it does not scale to "everyone". Even small local mini-entrepreneurs often have to rely on tricks and cheating and using the inexperience and lack of knowledge of their customers. So, when we look at such developments, please, let's not stop at "those are horrible people". Just look back at the explanations for why Pizarro's was so brutal, if I read that correctly the conquerors themselves were put under huge pressure due to... debt. We can't expect people to act ethically, to their own big disadvantage, while having to live in a highly competitive system that forces them to make money.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago

SkyBelow 4y ago

I don't think that's an adequate comparison to what they are selling. If I rent a car and stop paying for it, if I were to say "I expect them to leave me with the car I rented and just not provide a replacement when it needs to be replaced" people would look at me like I was trolling. The nature of renting a car, and the prices involved in renting vs buying are great enough that people understand the market. With ink, they are doing something similar. You aren't paying $1/month (their lowest tier plan) to buy a cartridge of ink until it runs out. That pricing would be unreasonable compared to the current market price of ink (regardless of what that market price should be if we had better competition). Anyone thinking they found a hack to get HP to give them ink cartridges for $1 is like my example thinking I found a slightly used 2022 car for $500 because I can rent it and then stop paying and get to keep the car. In this specific case, they aren't taking the ink back, not worth it, and instead creating waste by disabling it. We could say there market shouldn't exist and outlaw it to reduce waste, but that's a different argument than to argue they are selling you a cartridge of ink (technically 2+ for black and color) for $1.

josephcsible 4y ago
What's the difference between these two cases? 1. Pay $1 for a subscription, print like crazy until your first set of cartridges are empty, then immediately cancel 2. Pay $1 for a subscription, immediately cancel, then keep printing with your first set of cartridges until they're empty Today, HP allows 1 but not 2. Why?
- SkyBelow 4y ago
  You pay $1 for 10 pages and then they charge per page after that. You will end up paying more than just buying a cartridge if you tried 1.