
What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers - CapitalistCartr
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/what-hp-must-do-make-amends-its-self-destructing-printers
======
makecheck
Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for
companies to build things that are _obviously_ wasteful, and clear
alternatives should be available.

Every time you have to “throw away” something that looks 70% reusable (or in
the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it’s aggravating. We really
need to push _all_ companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that
none of them feels pressured to go that route just to stay competitive. And if
competition is not an issue, and it really is just a scam for more money,
executives need to be going to jail.

It is not hard to imagine a slightly modified printer cartridge that saves
virtually all of the electronics and casing, and just plugs in a new ink pod;
or, one that has a “gas tank” kind of port where you can add more ink. They
just need to do it.

~~~
zwieback
I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D.
Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models:

\- disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here
we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low
initial price of the printer

\- permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of
various capacities, here the challenge is to make sure the printhead doesn't
get ruined before the printer gets replaced. Third party ink can be a
contributing factor to printhead health

We now also have an ink-subscription model where you pay at some anticipated
level of ink use and you get a replacement cartridge when we think you need
it.

~~~
anexprogrammer
Obviously I'm older, but I'd _prefer_ to pay a little more, and give you some
profit, for a printer that's built to last, with some metal, rather than <£100
for a near cost pile of fragile plastic as the foundation of my ink
subscription - with ink cartridges that seem to get smaller but more expensive
with each passing year.

Then pay a reasonable price for cartridge with printhead ongoing, otherwise,
if I'm successful keeping the printer as long as possible, I'm still recouping
the low cost of the printer long past the point I bought enough ink to do so.

I don't need high throughput, heavy duty, as I don't print that much any more,
so buying from the business range isn't usually sensible.

~~~
wvenable
I bought a color laser printer for a few hundred bucks and despite almost
never having to print anything it's one of the better purchases I've made.

It just works. It's not wasteful. And it won't dry out from lack of use. I
figure I'll break even over buying ink-jet printers and cartridges in another
year or so. Even if everything costs more in short term, it's so much less
wasteful.

~~~
brokenmachine
I tried to do the same thing but bought a cheap <$100 mono laser. I pretty
much never print, maybe a page a month, if that.

It's only a year old and now it won't suck up the paper properly. I have to
literally stick my hands into it and feed the paper in page-by-page.

The thing has successfully printed less than 20 pages and it's already not
working.

It's 2016 and Samsung can't make a rubber roller that works. And I don't want
to buy another just to have the same thing happen.

~~~
wvenable
I spent about $400 -- I figure a sub $100 laser printer is much the same thing
as buying a cheap inkjet.

~~~
brokenmachine
I wrongfully assumed that an appliance manufactured and sold to perform a
single task would be able to perform that task.

That was a mistake.

~~~
wvenable
I think this whole thread is about how that's a mistake! You get what you pay
for and cheap printers are crap; they're so cheap they're virtually useless.

------
3chelon
I once got a full refund on a laptop outside of its warranty period because a
software update (Windows 8.1) effectively bricked the machine. I demanded it
under the UK Sale of Goods Act, which states that a product must be fit for
purpose, which it clearly no longer was once the automatic update had
happened.

I do wonder if this can be more broadly applied to consumer products that
effectively change their behaviour after a software update. Is it the same
product you originally bought? I would contest not. And surely lawyers could
have a field day with this one?

~~~
vc4devil
The issue is why do people in UK/USA put up with this Orwellian customer
control business model?

In Asia if a company were to do these things the business would be burnt to
the ground, and/or family selling the inferior by design products.

...

This is silly, the printer biz has always been 'give away the camera, and take
the first born when they need film'

You go abroad ASIA and every printer ink or cartridge, as a bladder attached
outside where you have an infinite pool of ink/powder for printing, you buy
the printer, and walk out the store with the bladder attached.

Now only in the USA do they sell the SIM card for the phone by ID, or make it
a felony to put free ink or powder in a printer. HP? Canon and all have been
doing this for years, but why is it that in USA you still walk out of the
store with a boxed printer that has cartridge with a 1/2 life of 10 prints and
then the ink/powder costs the same as the original printer?

The USA like the Epipen fiasco is FULL retard on screwing people, HP is just
on the band-wagon.

...

From poor medical care, to Epipen, to all the silly things that USA/UK people
put with, its amazing the CORP Fascist government has such willing lemmings to
go along with this BS.

~~~
jackhack
Because, from healthcare, to consumer products, to software, to books, the US
is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the
profit center that makes possible the steeply-discounted-almost-free sales
elsewhere.

~~~
cmdrfred
The "full price" here was 15 percent of GlaxoSmithKline's revenue last year.
They spent 40 percent on marketing. When can this myth die?

[http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-
gs...](http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in-
r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html)

~~~
vonmoltke
Probably about the same time as people stop equating "general and
administration expenses" with "marketing". Marketing is a subset of that.

~~~
cmdrfred
Yes, it also includes buying lunches for doctors and private jets for the
executive staff. What it does not include is R&D in any shape or form. The
fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.

~~~
vonmoltke
Oy. It also includes paying the janitors, the property taxes, and the myriad
of other costs that come with running a company.

> The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.

Neither are their SGA expenses. The two combined are just under half GSK's
revenue.

Anyway, that's irrelevant to trying to score cheap points with a false
equivalence.

------
Agustus
A brother MFC is $250, is sturdier and does not hate me as a consumer.
Changing a toner is $50 per cartridge. I recommend it to every person looking
for a printer: Buy a laser printer.

~~~
alistairSH
Another Brother laser printer user here. I did have some strange networking
problems when I initially configured mine for wireless use. The Macs on the
network consistently lost the ability to connect.

My son eventually resolved the problem, though I never bothered to ask how.
Never had that issue with Canon, but so far, I much happier with the Brother.
The toner cartridge lasts WAY longer than the Canon inkjet and per-age cost is
less. I did give up color, but I don't need that often enough to worry about -
I can just print at work or go to FedEx/Kinkos.

~~~
specialist
I have same zombie connectivity issue with Mac clients. Have to walk over and
bounce the printer. Doesn't happen with Windows.

Would love to know your son's fix.

~~~
alistairSH
I think he gave the Brother a fixed IP (using the admin tool on the wireless
router, maybe). We didn't change anything on the Macs themselves. If he's
around this evening, I'll ask.

------
lightedman
HP can't make amends. They simply need to be sued for anti-competitive
practices and violations of the Magnusson-Moss anti-tying provisions.

~~~
cmurf
I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled
any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the
printer. I'm pretty sure Magnusson-Moss says you can't void warranties, in
effect it's not legal to shift liability or burden proof, to disadvantage the
consumer. In the case of printers, the warranty is not voided by using 3rd
party ink, what they've basically done is add DRM to their printer where it
won't use 3rd party ink.

So now the consumer is in this position where if they could get the printer to
use 3rd party ink, and the printer dies, the printer company can't void the
warranty due to 3rd party ink; but because of DRM and DMCA chances are the
user can't legally compel the printer to use 3rd party ink anyway.

~~~
lightedman
"I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled
any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the
printer."

Why do you think I said they need to be sued for such a thing? Specifically
because nobody has, yet. I know what HP does Re: their product; I've worked
for them in the laptop repair department handling the water damage claims. Let
me tell you, they did EVERYTHING they could to get out of honoring warranty
and paid-for user damage warranty extensions. I'll guarantee you the second
someone tries to return the printer for being defective and HP discovers that
they used a 3rd-party cartridge, they'll try to get out of the warranty claim.
The Magnusson-Moss act specifically states "Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, the warranty cannot be conditioned to a specific brand of parts, services
or vehicle modifications unless those parts or services are provided free of
charge." HP charges for the ink carts. I would bet a good attorney would make
this a simple case.

------
alex_lod
Instructions for rolling back the firmware, which fixed the issue for me:
[https://www.brozkeff.net/2016/09/01/how-to-downgrade-
firmwar...](https://www.brozkeff.net/2016/09/01/how-to-downgrade-firmware-on-
hp-officejet-pro-8610-to-allow-using-old-or-refilled-cartridges/)

------
SyneRyder
I generally like the EFF, and I'm a member (albeit at a low paying level)...
but if you're really unhappy about this, isn't it better just to stop buying
HP printer products?

Rather than being so activist & "omg outrage!", why doesn't the EFF publish a
list of printers that the EFF currently does recommend? Almost like the
Wirecutter does with their product testing reviews. (It sounds like Epson
might be one alternative with the EcoTank range.) They could evaluate products
against EFF values (driver compatibility with Linux / BSD maybe?) and it would
be a more positive & productive response than social media outrage.

~~~
praptak
Because consumer choice is a very weak weapon against your freedoms being
taken away. Political action is what corporations fear, in particular the
threat of organized support behind ideas to regulate them more heavily.

Edit: RMS quote: _" All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people’s
rights with one hand tied behind our backs, using nothing except the
individual option to say no to a deal. We should use democracy to organize and
together impose limits on what the rich can do to the rest of us. That’s what
democracy was invented for!"_

~~~
smithkl42
That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up
stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies
have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the
government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell
what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force
on us. Twitter has the right to shut down speech on its network that it
doesn't like, and that's not a First Amendment issue. Nobody's liberties are
being taken away: rather, someone's liberties are being exercised.

Now, I do think that a lawsuit may be in order here, because it seems quite
plausible that HP acted deceptively. But that's not "our rights being taken
away", which is primarily an issue related to the guys with guns (i.e., the
government). This isn't that: rather, it's a company lying to us, and trying
to get us to buy their product on false pretenses.

~~~
jackmott
How about we start characterizing "company lying to us" as theft, and put them
in actual jail for it, then?

If you want to treat corporations like people with liberties, let's make basic
laws like fraud and theft have consequences. We shoot and choke to death
people selling cigarettes or cds 'illegally' on the side of the street why
can't Wells Fargo executives go to jail for theft?

~~~
witty_username
But financial crimes are illegal. Could you point out a specific person/case?

Wells Fargo fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine.

~~~
cmdrfred
Wells Fargo's shareholders fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine.
As far as I'm aware the CEO kept his job and bonus.

------
bencollier49
I want to know if this is classed as fraud or not. According to the original
story I read, the printer allegedly reported that the cartridge was either
broken or missing, and the system was programmed to lie in this way on
purpose.

Lying to a person in order to gain pecuniary advantage is fraud. Is this
analysis correct?

------
ts330
how much does it cost to setup a factory to produce a half decent printer-
scanner with ink cartridges and ink supplies? this entire industry is broken.
surely basic printers are so well understood by now that every component is a
commodity?

for the majority of people, a printer that simply just works is good enough.
you do not need to upgrade every year. you do not need the latest in ink
technology - you want photo prints, do it properly online.

manufacturers like HP et al only introduce different printer models /
cartridges / drivers etc etc to keep people upgrading.

so, what's the cost of doing this? i'd consider it a gift to humanity.

~~~
davidsong
Imagine playing minesweeper on advanced difficulty, blindfolded, but where all
the mines are patents. It would be a bit like that unless you wanted 25 year
old printer technology.

------
a3n
I don't understand how this can be a thing.

You can buy and use an oil filter from any source for your car. I think it's
illegal to require original manufacturer parts.

Yet HP is doing exactly that, and in an underhanded way. And this fight, over
printer ink, has been going on for years.

How can this be?

~~~
jlgaddis
This is one of HP's top revenue generators, while the rest of the company is
in a slow downward spiral (and has been for years). You better believe that
they're going to do whatever {they can,it takes} to preserve that revenue.

------
jasonkostempski
Why is the EFF getting involved now? HP has been doing stuff like this for
well over 15 years. And why are they calling for apologies and promises? They
should be calling for open source software and firmware so things like this
can't happen.

~~~
kijin
EFF is calling for HP to publicly promise not to invoke section 1201 of DMCA
against researchers and aftermarket vendors. This is necessary in order for
anyone in the U.S. to develop open-source software or firmware for HP
printers.

~~~
specialist
Aha. Thank you for explaining.

I've been wondering why there are no open source projects. After some casual
searching, I found one DIY project that uses a commercially available inkjet
cartridge.

Previously, I looked on ebay to see what OEM toner drums etc would cost. It
might just be cheaper, faster to buy a Brother laser and replace the smarts.

------
jawns
I notice that the letter never alleges that HP's actions are illegal, only
that they are anti-consumer.

Can anyone chime in on the legality of what HP has done? Aren't bait-and-
switch tactics generally illegal?

~~~
maxerickson
The information included with the product likely states that it should only be
used with HP inks. No bait, no switch.

~~~
jawns
should, or must?

I've seen plenty of products that say you _should_ use only manufacturer-
approved products.

But I know in the U.S. manufacturers aren't allowed to void warranties just
because a third-party component is used.

But can manufacturers really step around that by disabling the ability to use
third-party components?

~~~
maxerickson
The point would be that they weren't claiming working with other inks as a
feature, which really undermines the bait and switch argument.

------
mattkevan
I've made a solemn vow never to purchase a HP product again, after I
discovered that the printer I'd bought (from a major UK retailer) was region-
locked to US ink. Which you can't buy in the UK.

I threw that thing into the e-waste bin with some force when it finally broke.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I firmly believe that the best use of those printers is disassembling them and
taking their stepper motors for use in DIY 3D printers and other CNC machines.

------
anilgulecha
Epson with their ink-tank system is where the future is at. I see this being
used widely around people I know.

~~~
in_the_sticks
Why? Color laser printers are getting fairly cheap (mine's a basic printer,
granted, but it was quite a bit cheaper than the cheapest EcoTank models). You
don't have to worry about your ink drying out or print heads getting clogged.

~~~
onion2k
That's great if you print a couple of hundred pages a year, but if you print a
couple of hundred pages _a day_ a cheap color laser printer will be very
expensive to run and it'll break down often enough to be a significant
problem.

No doubt your printer serves you well, but that doesn't mean it's a good
solution for everyone.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
If you're printing a couple of hundred pages a day, I'd assume its for work
and that's part of the cost of doing business. In my personal life I print out
like a dozen pages a year? Mostly boarding passes.

~~~
Declanomous
The nice thing about inkjets is that they are smaller. I have a Brother HL
5250dn (off the top of my head). I bought it for $75 eight years ago, and I've
printed about 30,000 pages through it. Most of those pages were while I was in
college and was doing research. Now I print about 100 pages a year, and I
mildly resent the printer for all the space it takes up.

On the flip side, my company has a set of 3 hp printers that we use twice a
year for printing stuff at the last minute for our two conferences, which are
less than a month apart. We have to buy new print cartridges every year, cause
the ink dries in the container. I think our cost per page is probably close to
a dollar. This year we had to throw out a number of unused cartridges because
they dried out in the package, despite being less than 18 months old.

Moral of the story is that inkjets suck no matter what, and the biggest
downside of laser printers is their size.

------
TYPE_FASTER
I stopped buying HP inkjet printers a long time ago. They are horrible.

~~~
cptskippy
The HP 722c was their last decent inkjet.

------
cbhl
Dell isn't a brand people commonly associate with printers, but I highly
recommend their Color Laser printers. You spend $300-$400 upfront, but then
you get a machine that talks PostScript and PCL (industry standards -- so no
worrying about Linux support or installing special printer driver packages)
and can be hooked up to the network (using Ethernet or Wi-Fi, depending on the
model), and where each color of toner can be replaced independently.

------
segmondy
For many years I've steered clear of HP products and voice a strong opinion
against them. While HP figures it out, we should also preach against them to
our colleagues, friends, family and to all. The only way these companies
realize they are in the wrong is if their bottom line is affected, until then,
they don't have a lick of empathy.

~~~
VT_Drew
Eh, when it comes to computers (not printers) HP isn't that bad. I'll take HP
over Lenovo any day. Although HP wouldn't be my first choice when choosing a
computer.

------
threepipeproblm
Or they could just never never sell anything to an informed party again.

------
rdiddly
There is no practical way for HP to "make amends." I would consider buying an
HP printer if they gave me for free, a flawlessly-working printer (or johnny-
on-the-spot support and/or enough free replacement printers to achieve the
functional equivalent), and 5 years of free ink. In other words, a level of
generosity and support that, if they did it for everybody, would put them out
of business. Which is probably where they deserve to be. That also, would help
make amends.

It would also be okay with me if the whole printer market were regulated into
some semblance of normalcy by the government. (Assuming the government is
competent and capable of governing the corporate class to which it is
currently in thrall... obviously not a valid assumption. Everybody who was all
GET BIG GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS - enjoy.)

------
pferde
Watch it being completely ignored by HP.

------
rdiddly
Can't sign my name to something with a grammar error:

"...the printers now automatically verify whether its ink cartridges are
official HP ink..."

The word "its" has no antecedent to which it refers. Assuming you mean
"belonging to the printers" then it should be "their." Though it highlights a
factual inaccuracy - the cartridges are not the property of the printer(s), so
maybe just say "the" ink cartridges, or better yet, "any installed" ink
cartridges.

------
heisenbit
David Packard in "The HP Way"

Chapter 12 Responsibility to Society

...Among the Hewlett-Packard objectives Bill Hewlett and I set down was one
recognizing the company's responsibility to be a good Corporate citizen....

...This means being sensitive to the needs and interests of the community; it
means applying the highest standards of honesty and integrity to all our
relationships with individuals and groups; ...

~~~
bsg75
The HP of today is not the same company unfortunately.

------
trcollinson
Full disclosure, I am a former HP Engineer who worked with HP Labs, mostly in
the Computer Vision area, and 100% productizing their labs research into
viable profit streams. Your milage on my comments may vary. I am not going to
attempt to justify what HP does but it will probably sound as though I am (try
to remember myself and my entire team were laid off as unprofitable because we
were 5% off on our $1 Billion revenue goal, that stung a bit). I will attempt
to throw a few business comments that no one is mentioning, and a few
engineering thoughts that no one is sharing, into the mix so that you can see
an entire picture.

How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion
of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP? Internally, we used to call
HP an Ink seller thinly veiled as a technical company. They make more money in
the refill market than they do in the cartridge market, though their gross in
the cartridge market is still very high. This is because selling bottles of
ink with syringes and instructions to refill is way cheaper than selling new
cartridges with the manufacturing of the rather complex pieces in the
cartridge, the packaging, the shipping to the stores, and the marketing. So
why would they suddenly shoot themselves in the foot and kill that market?
I'll get there.

I hear you say "HP makes so much in ink sales they are trying to monopolize
the market and squeeze just a bit more revenue out of it!". I hate to break it
to you, most people just buy the refills at Walmart or Costco from the giant
displays and have no idea that their printers will be borked if they don't. A
majority of the refillers refill with an HP authorized refiller (those people
you meet in mall kiosks, most are authorized, they won't bork your printer).
Actually HP loses far more money from people using crappy ink refills and
crappy knock off cartridges and then calling up to customer service and saying
their printers were ruined, thus sending out new printers and ink. The cost of
the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one
of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings.

So, the technical. Someone in the comments mentions "Why not just build a new
printer company! Printing technology can't be that hard!" A further comment
says "Oh you could, but wait until the patent lawyers come to get you!" Well,
true. A lot of printing technology is patented and pretty locked down. But
it's disingenuous to say that printing technology can't be that hard. Imagine
the following scenario:

You just bought a brand new iPhone 7 with a 12 MP ultra clear lens. You have a
party at your house and snap a photo of your child with their technically
inept grandparent. Grandparent says "I don't use the facebooks, and I don't
understand mail with an e, print me a copy of that photo!" No problem, your HP
printer is wirelessly on your network. You print from your phone onto photo
paper.

Where's the hard part of this technical equation? Well a ton of engineering
went into that small 12 MP camera, processing, the wireless network for
delivery, etc. But hell, you want to be able to print that photo on any old
glossy paper you bought from someone, using a knock off cartridge, with any
ink they shove into it. And it better come out looking like an Ansel Adams
original, or damn it, HP screwed you as a consumer again!

In order for you to get the sharp colors in the right hues with the perfect
lines it takes a lot of engineering. In order for you to get the paper to come
out dry (either we're talking photo printing or just your black and white
document) and not bleed onto the back of the next page in the tray, it takes
technology. I'm sorry Cory, but your analogy with the toaster does not hold
true. If I get a new toaster and throw bread into it, I only have to try a few
dials and settings to get my toast to come out the way I like it. With
printing and ink, there are literally thousands of variables from head design
to spray to the viscosity of the ink, and on and on and on. Remember for a
moment, consumers don't want think about the angle, velocity, and aeration of
their red ink, not to mention how to combat humidity to not ruin the viscosity
of the ink between the head and the paper (even if it's only for a fraction of
a millisecond). They just want a perfect print. And HP just wants their
consumers, on the whole, to like their products and not complain to much, and
keep on buying stuff.

Now, if you really want to scare the pants off of HP and get them out of this
market, digitize everything and stop printing. Get tablets for everyone you
know. Use them at work and at home. Print less. This is what really worries
them in the market.

~~~
chefandy
Yay Stockholm syndrome.

"How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion
of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP?"

Keeping in mind that the median personal income in the US is around 45k per
year, how much would you care whether HP made that printer ink or not if you
invested hard-earned salary in a printer several months ago, and stocked up on
a few hundred bucks worth of cheaper ink, only to have HP secretly make it
obsolete?

~~~
trcollinson
Now now, let's not get into poor arguments and logical fallacies. First off,
read the rest of my comment, there is more to it.

Second, you pose an interesting question. I am assuming this isn't what you
did, but let's pretend for a moment that it really is what you did. Let's also
assume that HP printers let you use your cheaper ink. Again, you start
printing things with your cheaper ink and suddenly your papers are bleeding
onto the back of the next page as they sit in the printer tray. Your photo
prints don't come out looking like the photos on your screen or your phone.
Your prints fade easily. Your prints don't hold up to even a small amount of
water dripping on them. Your ink cartridge heads start to gunk up and won't
print. Now what do you do? Do realize that you bought cheap ink and that the
ink you bought it not up to the quality you wanted? Do you call the cheaper
ink manufacturer and complain? Or do you call up HP and complain their your
printer breaks?

You are a smart engineer. You would realize that you did not buy a quality ink
product and you got what you paid for. But would everyone?

~~~
threepipeproblm
>> How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good
portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP?

It makes my perspective that HP thinks its customers very stupid even
stronger... since your comment implies that they charge dramatically more for
their on-brand inks than for off-brand inks without adding any extra value.

Apparently you think that HP sells ink at roughly the same price as gold
([http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-
is-t...](http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-the-other-
black-gold)) not because of anti-consumer practices, but because they are
trying to _protect_ consumers.

And when they do sell it at a lower rate, under a different name, it's to
_protect_ the consumers who are too stupid to buy HP's good on-brand ink from
ruining their printers. How noble.

You and HP seem to think that, although cars with tens of thousands of
components can somehow continue to run even when consumers are stupid enough
to buy aftermarket parts, that _printer_ consumers are too stupid to make a
decision about 1 part -- even with the aid of state-of-the art ratings systems
that allow them to instantly share any problems with the buying community.

Incidentally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy or say they have a
"poor argument" without bothering to point why, is just a form of name calling
directed at the (actual) argument rather than the person. It's a non-argument.

~~~
trcollinson
My apologies, the fallacy used was ad hominem. By casting doubt on my comment
by saying that I have Stockholm Syndrome he is overtly attacking my character
by pointing out a psychological issue he perceives that I have, comparing my
time with HP to, evidently, kidnapping and being a hostage. That's a poor
argument. I should have made it more obvious.

They actually charge exactly the same for all of their ink per ounce (with the
variable being the type of ink not the method of distribution), and frankly it
is quite a lot more than even what was pointed out in the npr reference you
show. A number of their inks make more per ounce than just about anything you
can imagine. The reason the off-brand ink refilling cost is less than a new
cartridge from a display has to do with packaging and distribution. HP has not
figured out any magical way to get away from market forces. When they sell the
authorized refill supplies, it is just ink, syringes, and instructions. No
cartridge, no packaging, no marketing, no shipping.

Also, I don't believe I made myself clear enough. HP isn't trying to protect
consumers. They are attempting to protect themselves from consumers. Remember
I said "The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive
for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board
meetings." This isn't some argument to try to protect consumers. HP is out for
their bottom line, plain and simple. That is not surprising to me.

Your car argument is interesting. The car maintenance industry is absolutely
giant. I don't know about your car, but if I pick the wrong oil, the wrong
filter, the wrong fluids in general, or the wrong part, my car stops working.
And if I pick the wrong thing in a number of categories my warranty also stops
working and if I take it back to the manufacturer, they don't fix it. I can
use state of the art ratings systems, that is true, to decide if my purchase
will, on the whole, be a good one. That is true.

------
PretzelFisch
Is their any validity to HP's reasoning for these time limits? I know their
print cart includes the print head unlike cannon,epson and lexmark.

------
jkot
There is a really scary side of that, users are being punished for doing
software upgrades.

