5 ms·

It's at least plausible that running them faster means servicing is more expensive (assuming these were supplied under service contracts / leases which seems to

by caf 4y ago

It's at least plausible that running them faster means servicing is more expensive (assuming these were supplied under service contracts / leases which seems to be the usual case for office copiers).

GauntletWizard 4y ago
I am 100% okay with hardware that has been leased having artificial limitations. I don't own a leased device. I am paying for my usage of it. Running something at half capacity for service reliability reasons is a valid strategy. I'm 100% okay with artificial limitations on hardware I buy, too, so long as they're upfront about capabilities - Running something at half capacity for service reliability reasons is still a valid strategy when dealing with warranties. I have no problem buying an AMD Ryzen 7900 which is literally the same silicon on the same fab as the 7950, but binned differently. They are clear about what they're providing, what the specs are, and it's possible that it could perform better, but I know what they're guaranteeing. Sometimes I don't like it - If yields are good, they could bin many more cards at the higher tier and drop the price, but they're under no obligation to provide me a better product out of charity; They should have competition that forces their hand. It's where it's unclear or deceptive that it's a problem, and HP's scheme is a shakedown. We should invest in competitors.
- 8note 4y ago
  I'd see them as a monopoly business. The cost to start a competitor is ridiculously high. The hardware sellers instead need to be broken up for competitiveness
- ratg13 4y ago
  And you don’t care if you can’t fix it either? John Deere sells you a tractor and you honestly don’t care that you can’t have it repaired by a local tractor shop? I mean it’s great if you happen to live next to a dealer and are rich, but not everyone is so privileged.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    That'd be the "We should invest in competitors" part. Monopolies are a problem. Businesses exploiting consumers are a problem. Both are worth solving.
  - 95014_refugee 4y ago
    Provided this is clear up front, and I have alternatives if it doesn’t suit my needs; yes.

by caf 4y ago

It's at least plausible that running them faster means servicing is more expensive (assuming these were supplied under service contracts / leases which seems to be the usual case for office copiers).

GauntletWizard 4y ago

I am 100% okay with hardware that has been leased having artificial limitations. I don't own a leased device. I am paying for my usage of it. Running something at half capacity for service reliability reasons is a valid strategy. I'm 100% okay with artificial limitations on hardware I buy, too, so long as they're upfront about capabilities - Running something at half capacity for service reliability reasons is still a valid strategy when dealing with warranties. I have no problem buying an AMD Ryzen 7900 which is literally the same silicon on the same fab as the 7950, but binned differently. They are clear about what they're providing, what the specs are, and it's possible that it could perform better, but I know what they're guaranteeing. Sometimes I don't like it - If yields are good, they could bin many more cards at the higher tier and drop the price, but they're under no obligation to provide me a better product out of charity; They should have competition that forces their hand. It's where it's unclear or deceptive that it's a problem, and HP's scheme is a shakedown. We should invest in competitors.

8note 4y ago
I'd see them as a monopoly business. The cost to start a competitor is ridiculously high. The hardware sellers instead need to be broken up for competitiveness
ratg13 4y ago
And you don’t care if you can’t fix it either? John Deere sells you a tractor and you honestly don’t care that you can’t have it repaired by a local tractor shop? I mean it’s great if you happen to live next to a dealer and are rich, but not everyone is so privileged.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  That'd be the "We should invest in competitors" part. Monopolies are a problem. Businesses exploiting consumers are a problem. Both are worth solving.
- 95014_refugee 4y ago
  Provided this is clear up front, and I have alternatives if it doesn’t suit my needs; yes.