In the case of HP, I think it makes sense from a business point of view. The "big money" in printers is not the printer but the refills. They are kind of the pe

In the case of HP, I think it makes sense from a business point of view. The "big money" in printers is not the printer but the refills. They are kind of the petroleum lamps of IT. One of the biggest problems from the POV of a printer company is the fact that refill/replace from different brands cuts into their profits. The inital strategy by all companies was to point out that original ink is better in some way, then most of them tried some sorts of firmware based restrictions. HP actually tried a pretty interesting approach with their ink subscription model. They have a decent price/page with that and you don't ever have to worry about running out of ink because you automatically get a replacement cartridge if you subscribe for x$/month. The downside is that the number of pages that you are "allowed" to print each month is limited which seems pretty ridiculous at first glance for a tech person. However, if you think about "normal users" I think they actually found a good way to force them back to their ink by selling "peace of mind". So basically, while I completely disagree with the approach because I want to use a device I buy any way I please I think HP is actually making the right business call here. The average customer cares about having an ok price/page and having a printer that always prints when they need it. I think HP is targeting that with their subscription model and also making cash flows a bit more reliable.