6 ms·

I think that HP does a lot of shady shit. But I actually think that this is fair. If you purchase a subscription for 100 pages/month or whatever you can't expec

I think that HP does a lot of shady shit. But I actually think that this is fair. If you purchase a subscription for 100 pages/month or whatever you can't expect to cancel and keep printing for a while after you stop paying. I think it is reasonable that they provide both options. You can go with the subscription and you don't own the ink, but HP manages refilling and replacing as needed. Or you can buy your own ink and mange it yourself. I don't think that you can expect both. I do agree that it is a bit wasteful but unfortunately it isn't economical for them to retrieve the partially-used cartridges from cancelled subscriptions, so it is just thrown away. It would be interesting if they offered a "buy out" option. When you cancel the subscription with half an ink cartridge they could sell it to you for half of the price. If they allowed use of cartridges after the subscription expiry then the system could easily be abused by only subscribing for one month at a time to refill your cartridge then cancelling until you actually used it up. There are workarounds for this like minimum subscription length or blocking people based on address but they have other problems. The real shady shit is rejecting third-party cartridges, that should be illegal. It's your printer and you should be able to decide what ink you use.

throwaway292939 3y ago
The easy solution that should've been implemented is to let you "ride out" your last cartridge.
runamok 3y ago
If you treat your customers like thieves then they'll act like thieves. All of the above is a big waste of time for 99.9% of customers. At the minimum just let it go the first time as long as a customer has a reasonably long subscription. You know their margins on these things are nuts. I know to me and many other IT type folks HP is the last choice.
cmeacham98 3y ago
I would argue that the 'Instant Ink' service as a whole is somewhat shady and an environmental disaster, but I agree that this particular part is an obvious outcome that shouldn't really be controversial.
- __del__ 3y ago
  it isn't controversial that a company would rather destroy a resource than let someone have it, but some of us strongly oppose this
  - WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 3y ago
    They are not destroying any resources, you are free to cut the cartridge open and use the ink or electronic components as you like.
  - toast0 3y ago
    Don't subscribe to the service if you don't like the business. HP certainly pushes instant ink, but afaik, all of the instant ink printers are also usable with customer owned cartridges (although some printers won't use 3rd party cartridges).
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      I mean, I don’t. But I don’t think they should be allowed to something so senselessly wasteful at all. If the business doesn’t work without trashing perfectly good ink it shouldn’t be a business.
bayindirh 3y ago
> The real shady shit is rejecting third-party cartridges, that should be illegal. It's your printer and you should be able to decide what ink you use. As a person who only uses original cartridges (w/o subscription, I buy and use them until they finish), I completely agree. However, ink chemistry is not some straightforward mixing and the risks are largely downplayed by 3rd party ink manufacturers. This is even before going into ink pH, pigment vs. dyes, and print longevity discussions.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > However, ink chemistry is not some straightforward mixing and the risks are largely downplayed by 3rd party ink manufacturers. I'd be willing to accept that for systems where the ink cartridges and printheads are separate and third-party ink not up to spec can actually cause serious damage (e.g. clogged ink pipes, replacing or flushing these is a serious amount of work), but HP's consumer printers are almost exclusively made with combined inkhead/cartridges.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Well, I had a Canon BJC4300 with separate cartridges and printheads. These things burst if you don't use printer for some time and the ink dried and expanded. As a result, you'd have four color bands at the end of every line. So, no thank you, I'll prefer combined ones. My decades old prints done with an HP500C are still intact and looking nice-ish and definitely legible. I don't want to get an old printed document a couple of years old and see it faded away. Same for photos. I print photos for people and some of them are still looking almost new after 5-6 years, despite being printed with a mid-end "Ink Advantage" printer with dye inks. For high volume, ephemeral prints, a 3d party ink can be OK, but these are my concerns, and I'm not willing to take the risks personally. Failing print heads and flooded printers are also not in my wish list, thanks. A simple printer like an old 500C can be cleaned easily, but a more compact AIO with a duplexer cannot be cleaned after such event. While tangential, I remember seeing HP's own, official black cartridge refill kits when 500C and 550C were new. I didn't see them after.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
Gigachad 3y ago
From a money and business perspective. I agree, this isn't the end of the world. From an environmental view, this is disgusting and should be illegal. Bricking a perfectly functional printer and ink is not acceptable.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  It might not be as bad as it sounds. It looks like HP handles recycling old cartridges. It might be better than the alternative -- people buying ink and disposing of the cartridge in a landfill, rather than the cartridge being re-used.
- secabeen 3y ago
  The printer is not bricked, the OP can purchase ink from an office supply store without using the Instant Ink program and it will work fine.
  - oefnak 3y ago
    That's not entirely true, as they only want official HP ink, as per a post of a few days ago
    - ehPReth 3y ago
      office supply stores would usually have a good selection of HP ink in stock. not saying that not allowing generic ink isn't bad, though.
    - numbwold 3y ago
      This is also not entirely true, HP only wants official HP ink on printers that customers opted into HP+. If you don't opt your printer into HP+, you don't need official ink, and 3rd party cartridges work just fine. For clarity: - inkjets: the customer chooses during setup if they want HP+ (they trade the ability to use 3rd party inks for +1 year warranty... lol); or keep it HP standard (no forced limitation on inks, 1 year warranty) - laserjets: if the customer buys an HP+, it comes "preactivated". I think HP sells non-HP+ models of the same printers, and customers are free to use whatever cartridges they want. Very nuanced, and they make it complicated. Fan of the Instant Ink service (I'm grandfathered into the old free plans), but not a fan of the way HP+ is pitched.
nerdjon 3y ago
I really am reluctant to agree with HP on anything, but in this case I have to agree. You can argue that the HP Instant Ink program itself is a scummy project, but these particular terms are understandable. I mean just look at the pricing of the program, $6 a month for 100 pages. VS $30+ for an ink cartridge. This isn't some "subscribe and save" program where they are sending you ink at a reduced cost but you can do with it as you wish. It's buying pages, it's made very clear what you are actually buying and the ink is basically leased to you. Now if they bricked the printer (like iRobot does with iRobot Select) I would be far more sympathetic and would be upset, but otherwise someone could just subscribe for a month. Pay the $1 and get a full ink cartridge, which simply doesn't make sense from HP's prospective.
- kazinator 3y ago
  > Now if they bricked the printer That allegation was essentially made: "Some even report not being able to print with cartridges they bought independently."
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  How are you buying pages if they don't include the paper? Clearly this is paying for the ink. I also don't understand what your cost argument is supposed to say: if you actually print at close to the allowed limit you're basically getting a new cartridge every other month or so, which is still not profitable if the $30 price is close to the break even price. If the problem for HP really was worry about not getting the money back for the initial cartridge they could just demand you commit for a six month period at least.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    Obviously what this is actually paying for is the Ink, but the way that is calculated is on a per page basis and the ink that is sent to you is basically being leased to you. I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. If I to look at the HP Tango, and I look at the "High Yield" cartridge which is $46, that is rated at 600 pages. So no, if you are doing 100 pages I would not expect you would be buying a new tank every month. Which is the $6 one I mentioned. If they demanded that commitment we would just be complaining about the commitment and not this side of it... Also that doesn't account for when they do inevitably need to send you another cartridge. The point here is simple, the marketing for "Instant Ink" is very clear about never stating how often you are getting a cartridge. It is just when you need it. They do that, because you are not buying the physical cartridge but obviously you need ink in your home to be able to print. If I subscribe to this for 3 months, spend the $18 a month. I may get that first cartridge but if O do zero prints, I won't be sent another cartridge (or at least shouldn't be). Yes it is a bit weird to think that you have something in your hands that you cannot actually use. But you are not buying the actual cartridges in this model. Put another way, let's assume this cartridge is actually 600 pages (it may or may not be since it depends on what exactly you print, unlike this subscription service that is just a per page). So you subscribe to this service saying you will print 50 pages a month. Theoretically that single cartridge you were sent at the beginning of your subscription will last for a year. You're paying $4 a month. HP is making the bet that you will keep up the subscription even though that first month is most likely a loss for them. If they were to just be "nice" and allow you to keep the cartridge it just opens it up for abuse.
woodrowbarlow 3y ago
milk delivery subscriptions used to be common. when you'd cancel your membership, they'd just stop delivering. they didn't come back to repossess your unused milk. these days each bottle would have a "smart cap" that could remotely curdle your milk in case of non-payment. it's not (historically) normal, it's not fair, but it's recently normalized because tech has enabled new ways for corporations to squeeze their customers.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > they didn't come back to repossess your unused milk. Well, it curdles on its own. They will come after you for the milk crate they delivered things in. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2016/10/03/florida-man-arrested-jailed-for-possessing-milk-crate/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2016/10/03/florida-man-arrested... https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-us-milk-crate-law.html https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to...
  - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
    Ironically your second link, which begins >Milk crates are one of the most versatile products around and can be used for everything from storage to fishing, furniture or even gardening. And the best bit of all is that you can simply pick them up for free from outside stores, right? >Wrong has articles about using milk crates for gardening, seating, in classrooms, and on bicycles in the sidebar. For example: 10 Great Uses of Milk Crates You’ve Probably Never Thought Of! https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/10-great-uses-of-milk-crates-youve-probably-never-thought-of.html https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/10-great-uses-of-milk-...
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      I don't follow. They're saying you can't just take them off the returns pile. As with printer cartridges, you can buy them direct and do anything you like with them... but if you got them in a milk delivery, they're still the dairy's and the dairy will want them back.
    - 3y ago
friend_and_foe 3y ago
The real shady shit is maintaining control of property you purchased after you paid for it. Rejecting third party cartridges, this subscription service, the ridiculous legal gymnastics that try to justify all of this, it's all ridiculous. If they want a subscription model they can't make you pay for the printer.
throwaway858 3y ago
This reminds me of how book stores "return" unsold books to the publisher: Shipping boxes of heavy books costs a lot of money, and the publisher doesn't actually need the books back (because they can always print new copies very cheaply). So the publisher just tells the book store to destroy the books, and as evidence for their destruction asks only for the covers to be shipped back to them (which is cheap). This is why books contain within them the text "This book should not be sold without a cover". So with this printer company, they are effectively "destroying" the unused ink cartridge since it's not worth it economically to have it shipped back to them. The added bonus is that if the customer renews the subscription then the ink can be "undestroyed"!
az226 3y ago
The fact that HP isn’t asking for the ink back tells you all you need to know about its actual value.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  I don't think them not asking for returned cartridges is much an indicator of value. How would it be worthwhile? Even Amazon destroys a large amount of returned merchandise, although I'm struggling to find a reputable source for that claim

throwaway292939 3y ago

The easy solution that should've been implemented is to let you "ride out" your last cartridge.

runamok 3y ago

If you treat your customers like thieves then they'll act like thieves. All of the above is a big waste of time for 99.9% of customers. At the minimum just let it go the first time as long as a customer has a reasonably long subscription. You know their margins on these things are nuts. I know to me and many other IT type folks HP is the last choice.

cmeacham98 3y ago

I would argue that the 'Instant Ink' service as a whole is somewhat shady and an environmental disaster, but I agree that this particular part is an obvious outcome that shouldn't really be controversial.

__del__ 3y ago
it isn't controversial that a company would rather destroy a resource than let someone have it, but some of us strongly oppose this
- WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 3y ago
  They are not destroying any resources, you are free to cut the cartridge open and use the ink or electronic components as you like.
- toast0 3y ago
  Don't subscribe to the service if you don't like the business. HP certainly pushes instant ink, but afaik, all of the instant ink printers are also usable with customer owned cartridges (although some printers won't use 3rd party cartridges).
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I mean, I don’t. But I don’t think they should be allowed to something so senselessly wasteful at all. If the business doesn’t work without trashing perfectly good ink it shouldn’t be a business.

bayindirh 3y ago

> The real shady shit is rejecting third-party cartridges, that should be illegal. It's your printer and you should be able to decide what ink you use. As a person who only uses original cartridges (w/o subscription, I buy and use them until they finish), I completely agree. However, ink chemistry is not some straightforward mixing and the risks are largely downplayed by 3rd party ink manufacturers. This is even before going into ink pH, pigment vs. dyes, and print longevity discussions.

mschuster91 3y ago
> However, ink chemistry is not some straightforward mixing and the risks are largely downplayed by 3rd party ink manufacturers. I'd be willing to accept that for systems where the ink cartridges and printheads are separate and third-party ink not up to spec can actually cause serious damage (e.g. clogged ink pipes, replacing or flushing these is a serious amount of work), but HP's consumer printers are almost exclusively made with combined inkhead/cartridges.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Well, I had a Canon BJC4300 with separate cartridges and printheads. These things burst if you don't use printer for some time and the ink dried and expanded. As a result, you'd have four color bands at the end of every line. So, no thank you, I'll prefer combined ones. My decades old prints done with an HP500C are still intact and looking nice-ish and definitely legible. I don't want to get an old printed document a couple of years old and see it faded away. Same for photos. I print photos for people and some of them are still looking almost new after 5-6 years, despite being printed with a mid-end "Ink Advantage" printer with dye inks. For high volume, ephemeral prints, a 3d party ink can be OK, but these are my concerns, and I'm not willing to take the risks personally. Failing print heads and flooded printers are also not in my wish list, thanks. A simple printer like an old 500C can be cleaned easily, but a more compact AIO with a duplexer cannot be cleaned after such event. While tangential, I remember seeing HP's own, official black cartridge refill kits when 500C and 550C were new. I didn't see them after.
jjoonathan 3y ago

Gigachad 3y ago

From a money and business perspective. I agree, this isn't the end of the world. From an environmental view, this is disgusting and should be illegal. Bricking a perfectly functional printer and ink is not acceptable.

shepherdjerred 3y ago
It might not be as bad as it sounds. It looks like HP handles recycling old cartridges. It might be better than the alternative -- people buying ink and disposing of the cartridge in a landfill, rather than the cartridge being re-used.
secabeen 3y ago
The printer is not bricked, the OP can purchase ink from an office supply store without using the Instant Ink program and it will work fine.
- oefnak 3y ago
  That's not entirely true, as they only want official HP ink, as per a post of a few days ago
  - ehPReth 3y ago
    office supply stores would usually have a good selection of HP ink in stock. not saying that not allowing generic ink isn't bad, though.
  - numbwold 3y ago
    This is also not entirely true, HP only wants official HP ink on printers that customers opted into HP+. If you don't opt your printer into HP+, you don't need official ink, and 3rd party cartridges work just fine. For clarity: - inkjets: the customer chooses during setup if they want HP+ (they trade the ability to use 3rd party inks for +1 year warranty... lol); or keep it HP standard (no forced limitation on inks, 1 year warranty) - laserjets: if the customer buys an HP+, it comes "preactivated". I think HP sells non-HP+ models of the same printers, and customers are free to use whatever cartridges they want. Very nuanced, and they make it complicated. Fan of the Instant Ink service (I'm grandfathered into the old free plans), but not a fan of the way HP+ is pitched.

nerdjon 3y ago

I really am reluctant to agree with HP on anything, but in this case I have to agree. You can argue that the HP Instant Ink program itself is a scummy project, but these particular terms are understandable. I mean just look at the pricing of the program, $6 a month for 100 pages. VS $30+ for an ink cartridge. This isn't some "subscribe and save" program where they are sending you ink at a reduced cost but you can do with it as you wish. It's buying pages, it's made very clear what you are actually buying and the ink is basically leased to you. Now if they bricked the printer (like iRobot does with iRobot Select) I would be far more sympathetic and would be upset, but otherwise someone could just subscribe for a month. Pay the $1 and get a full ink cartridge, which simply doesn't make sense from HP's prospective.

kazinator 3y ago
> Now if they bricked the printer That allegation was essentially made: "Some even report not being able to print with cartridges they bought independently."
SiempreViernes 3y ago
How are you buying pages if they don't include the paper? Clearly this is paying for the ink. I also don't understand what your cost argument is supposed to say: if you actually print at close to the allowed limit you're basically getting a new cartridge every other month or so, which is still not profitable if the $30 price is close to the break even price. If the problem for HP really was worry about not getting the money back for the initial cartridge they could just demand you commit for a six month period at least.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  Obviously what this is actually paying for is the Ink, but the way that is calculated is on a per page basis and the ink that is sent to you is basically being leased to you. I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. If I to look at the HP Tango, and I look at the "High Yield" cartridge which is $46, that is rated at 600 pages. So no, if you are doing 100 pages I would not expect you would be buying a new tank every month. Which is the $6 one I mentioned. If they demanded that commitment we would just be complaining about the commitment and not this side of it... Also that doesn't account for when they do inevitably need to send you another cartridge. The point here is simple, the marketing for "Instant Ink" is very clear about never stating how often you are getting a cartridge. It is just when you need it. They do that, because you are not buying the physical cartridge but obviously you need ink in your home to be able to print. If I subscribe to this for 3 months, spend the $18 a month. I may get that first cartridge but if O do zero prints, I won't be sent another cartridge (or at least shouldn't be). Yes it is a bit weird to think that you have something in your hands that you cannot actually use. But you are not buying the actual cartridges in this model. Put another way, let's assume this cartridge is actually 600 pages (it may or may not be since it depends on what exactly you print, unlike this subscription service that is just a per page). So you subscribe to this service saying you will print 50 pages a month. Theoretically that single cartridge you were sent at the beginning of your subscription will last for a year. You're paying $4 a month. HP is making the bet that you will keep up the subscription even though that first month is most likely a loss for them. If they were to just be "nice" and allow you to keep the cartridge it just opens it up for abuse.

woodrowbarlow 3y ago

milk delivery subscriptions used to be common. when you'd cancel your membership, they'd just stop delivering. they didn't come back to repossess your unused milk. these days each bottle would have a "smart cap" that could remotely curdle your milk in case of non-payment. it's not (historically) normal, it's not fair, but it's recently normalized because tech has enabled new ways for corporations to squeeze their customers.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> they didn't come back to repossess your unused milk. Well, it curdles on its own. They will come after you for the milk crate they delivered things in. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2016/10/03/florida-man-arrested-jailed-for-possessing-milk-crate/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2016/10/03/florida-man-arrested... https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-us-milk-crate-law.html https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to...
- notjulianjaynes 3y ago
  Ironically your second link, which begins >Milk crates are one of the most versatile products around and can be used for everything from storage to fishing, furniture or even gardening. And the best bit of all is that you can simply pick them up for free from outside stores, right? >Wrong has articles about using milk crates for gardening, seating, in classrooms, and on bicycles in the sidebar. For example: 10 Great Uses of Milk Crates You’ve Probably Never Thought Of! https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/10-great-uses-of-milk-crates-youve-probably-never-thought-of.html https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/10-great-uses-of-milk-...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I don't follow. They're saying you can't just take them off the returns pile. As with printer cartridges, you can buy them direct and do anything you like with them... but if you got them in a milk delivery, they're still the dairy's and the dairy will want them back.
  - 3y ago

friend_and_foe 3y ago

The real shady shit is maintaining control of property you purchased after you paid for it. Rejecting third party cartridges, this subscription service, the ridiculous legal gymnastics that try to justify all of this, it's all ridiculous. If they want a subscription model they can't make you pay for the printer.

throwaway858 3y ago

This reminds me of how book stores "return" unsold books to the publisher: Shipping boxes of heavy books costs a lot of money, and the publisher doesn't actually need the books back (because they can always print new copies very cheaply). So the publisher just tells the book store to destroy the books, and as evidence for their destruction asks only for the covers to be shipped back to them (which is cheap). This is why books contain within them the text "This book should not be sold without a cover". So with this printer company, they are effectively "destroying" the unused ink cartridge since it's not worth it economically to have it shipped back to them. The added bonus is that if the customer renews the subscription then the ink can be "undestroyed"!

az226 3y ago

The fact that HP isn’t asking for the ink back tells you all you need to know about its actual value.

shepherdjerred 3y ago
I don't think them not asking for returned cartridges is much an indicator of value. How would it be worthwhile? Even Amazon destroys a large amount of returned merchandise, although I'm struggling to find a reputable source for that claim