Will HP win the case?

[TECHNICAL GAMER]

For anyone that hasnt watched the latest techlinked episode, HP is in a case in EU because on the no 3rd party cartridge thing. One point they made was that 3rd party cartridges could be used to infect the network. I think thats only because the printer tries ton read and execute some special firmware that confirms that the cartridge is HP original. What do you guys think?

[Levent]

Nope, "EU" is not a fan of manufacturer deciding on what user can and cant do with their devices.

[YoungBlade]

That's an interesting argument.

 

"Our printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, that inserting a cartridge can cause it to fill your entire network with malware."

 

Sounds like the problem is the fact that the printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, rather than a problem with evil, infected ink cartridges of doom.

[Spotty]

if  there is a security risk caused by the ink cartridge, that risk only exists because HP chips the ink cartridges to prevent people from using third party ink cartridges. 

The only supposedly legitimate reason for it is to tell the printer what cartridge is installed and how many pages it's estimated to be able to print before running out of ink, but in my experience that honestly seems to be nothing more than a way to nag customers to buy more ink and prevent the printer from printing even when there's ink left in the cartridge. Printers worked just fine before ink level sensors. I'd happily accept having to reprint a page because ink ran out half way through the page rather than have the printer refuse to print at all because it thinks it's low on cyan.

 

I really hope that HP loses and the EU forces printer manufacturers to allow third party ink cartridges. I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

[Fasauceome]

If the EU can force apple to use USB-C because of how badly it affects the consumer otherwise, I can only hope that HP will lose. There needs to be a stronger legal precedent that protects the customer's right to actually own their electronics.

[starsmine]

18 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

If the EU can force apple to use USB-C because of how badly it affects the consumer otherwise, I can only hope that HP will lose. There needs to be a stronger legal precedent that protects the customer's right to actually own their electronics.

I really dont buy the narative at all the EU forced apple into USB-C. it was already coming as all other apple products had transferred over. 

HP's arguments don't really hold water in my eyes. Like I get making sure you have color accurate ink and all that for specialized professional work so you have all this DRM in place to block counterfits for that. At the consumer level these specific families of printers live at? no one cares

[cooky560]

Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with HP's practices. Cartridges don't need chips and firmware in them in the first place.

 

Perhaps if HP replaced all this crap with a simple "well of ink" for say $5 (a plastic hopper and some ink can't cost much more than that, surely from a BOM perspective), they'd not have the issue of people buying third party carts in the first place.

 

An example here is coffee machines, I generally buy the first party pods for my coffee maker, as they're cheaper than the third party ones, so even if the third party ones are legit, I will keep buying the first party ones.

[Levent]

28 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I really dont buy the narative at all the EU forced apple into USB-C. it was already coming as all other apple products had transferred over.

Apple likes making lemonades out of lemons. I highly doubt this was any different. Seems like their marketing is working properly.

[Erioch]

9 minutes ago, cooky560 said:

Perhaps if HP replaced all this crap with a simple "well of ink" for say $5 (a plastic hopper and some ink can't cost much more than that, surely from a BOM perspective), they'd not have the issue of people buying third party carts in the first place.

They lose money on printers.  They make money on ink.  From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense.

 

It sucks for consumers, though.  Especially if they don't know upfront they can't use 3rd party ink.

[Erioch]

[tkitch]

6 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

That's an interesting argument.

 

"Our printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, that inserting a cartridge can cause it to fill your entire network with malware."

 

Sounds like the problem is the fact that the printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, rather than a problem with evil, infected ink cartridges of doom.

Yeah, I will take anything HP says on this subject with a *huge* grain of salt.

They're the original company of "we're gonna fuck over customers with ink pricing"

In the 90's/early 00's I was selling 75$ a pair ink cartridges for HP Desktop printers.  That was legitimately 25 years ago.  75$ each back then is BEYOND bullshit.

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, Erioch said:

They lose money on printers.  They make money on ink.  From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense.

 

It sucks for consumers, though.  Especially if they don't know upfront they can't use 3rd party ink.

I don't trust HP's claim of losing money on printers, given how crap most of their printers are, they have to be making money on them.

 

[Lunar River]

9 hours ago, Erioch said:

They lose money on printers.  They make money on ink.  From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense.

 

It sucks for consumers, though.  Especially if they don't know upfront they can't use 3rd party ink.

I would rather pay more for a printer that actually works than have it tell me it cant print black and white because my yellow ink is “empty” despite not using it…

[Koechophe]

Even worse than that, they actually software block their own ink cartridges. I was gifted an HP printer a while back which came with a 6-month free trial of the Instant ink program. They sent me ink cartridges automatically, but I don't want to pay a monthly subscription for ink, so I unsubscribed afterwards. Now, my printer won't print with the HP cartridges that they sent because I am unsubscribed from instant ink. 

 

So I'm sitting there with literally 5 extra cartridges from HP that I can't use. Fun times. 

 

As soon as I need a printer again, I'm ditching HP altogether and getting an inktank.

[Needfuldoer]

I sure hope they don't win this one.

[Bagzie]

21 hours ago, Spotty said:

if  there is a security risk caused by the ink cartridge, that risk only exists because HP chips the ink cartridges to prevent people from using third party ink cartridges. 

The only supposedly legitimate reason for it is to tell the printer what cartridge is installed and how many pages it's estimated to be able to print before running out of ink, but in my experience that honestly seems to be nothing more than a way to nag customers to buy more ink and prevent the printer from printing even when there's ink left in the cartridge. Printers worked just fine before ink level sensors. I'd happily accept having to reprint a page because ink ran out half way through the page rather than have the printer refuse to print at all because it thinks it's low on cyan.

 

I really hope that HP loses and the EU forces printer manufacturers to allow third party ink cartridges. I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

This is absolutely the correct answer , Running out of ink mid page is so much better than it deciding it has no ink left by itself.

[NumLock21]

On 1/25/2024 at 12:56 AM, Koechophe said:

Even worse than that, they actually software block their own ink cartridges. I was gifted an HP printer a while back which came with a 6-month free trial of the Instant ink program. They sent me ink cartridges automatically, but I don't want to pay a monthly subscription for ink, so I unsubscribed afterwards. Now, my printer won't print with the HP cartridges that they sent because I am unsubscribed from instant ink. 

 

So I'm sitting there with literally 5 extra cartridges from HP that I can't use. Fun times. 

 

As soon as I need a printer again, I'm ditching HP altogether and getting an inktank.

I've heard of updates killing off 3rd party cartridges, but this is the first time I'm hearing unsubscribing form their instant ink, will also cause the printer to stop working, even when one can still go and buy HP inks from the store. Instant ink is optional, don't really have to signed up for it when you got that printer.

[Koechophe]

7 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

I've heard of updates killing off 3rd party cartridges, but this is the first time I'm hearing unsubscribing form their instant ink, will also cause the printer to stop working, even when one can still go and buy HP inks from the store. Instant ink is optional, don't really have to signed up for it when you got that printer.

Specifically, it kills off instant ink cartridges. You can buy non-instant-ink cartridges, but if you unsubscribe, any cartridges that are instant ink will no longer print due to a software block. 

[Polderviking]

On 1/24/2024 at 6:48 PM, cooky560 said:

Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with HP's practices. Cartridges don't need chips and firmware in them in the first place.

 

Perhaps if HP replaced all this crap with a simple "well of ink" for say $5 (a plastic hopper and some ink can't cost much more than that, surely from a BOM perspective), they'd not have the issue of people buying third party carts in the first place.

 

An example here is coffee machines, I generally buy the first party pods for my coffee maker, as they're cheaper than the third party ones, so even if the third party ones are legit, I will keep buying the first party ones.

The cartridges are the whole point though, not the printer.

Same with Nespresso coffee, HP is on this model. The (luxoriously looking) machines are sold cheaply so you'll pay 70 cents a cup for their coffee instead of the 7 cents a regular ground coffe would cost you.

 

I've bought a Brother laser printer years ago for this reason. The printer itself cost more, and it only does black and white. But I'm still on the toner that came with it and when i need it to print something it just does exactly that instead of shouting at me some irrelevant color is gone, or the whole thing just dried up because I only print like twenty pages in a year.

[cooky560]

12 minutes ago, Polderviking said:

The cartridges are the whole point though, not the printer.

Same with Nespresso coffee, HP is on this model. The (luxoriously looking) machines are sold cheaply so you'll pay 70 cents a cup for their coffee instead of the 7 cents a regular ground coffe would cost you.

 

I've bought a Brother laser printer years ago for this reason. The printer itself cost more, and it only does black and white. But I'm still on the toner that came with it and when i need it to print something it just does exactly that instead of shouting at me some irrelevant color is gone, or the whole thing just dried up because I only print like twenty pages in a year.

I keep thinking about one of these, I'm the sort of person who never really prints anything, so I have been visiting a local print shop and paying $0.50 per page the once every few months or so I need a hard copy of something. 

 

If the brother works out cheaper than this long term, it might be a suitable purchase.

[Polderviking]

13 minutes ago, cooky560 said:

I keep thinking about one of these, I'm the sort of person who never really prints anything, so I have been visiting a local print shop and paying $0.50 per page the once every few months or so I need a hard copy of something. 

 

If the brother works out cheaper than this long term, it might be a suitable purchase.

With 50 cents a print your yearly expendature looks like what, 10 bucks?
B/W laser printers start around 100/150.

 

So it depends mostly on how you value your time, and how close this print shop is.

I don't want to deal with print shops, hence the laser printer.
It's better/cheaper than an inkjet for me, but I think going to a print shop would be cheaper if I could be bothered to do so.

[cooky560]

2 hours ago, Polderviking said:

With 50 cents a print your yearly expendature looks like what, 10 bucks?
B/W laser printers start around 100/150.

 

So it depends mostly on how you value your time, and how close this print shop is.

I don't want to deal with print shops, hence the laser printer.
It's better/cheaper than an inkjet for me, but I think going to a print shop would be cheaper if I could be bothered to do so.

Given the near predatory experience end users have with printers, and more and more people moving away from computers and onto tablets and phones, I can see print shops taking over home printing. For most people, home printing is just not that common anymore.

[Erioch]

FYI, Brother has some subscription based printers as well.  Make sure you know what you're getting before you buy.

[Polderviking]

4 hours ago, cooky560 said:

Given the near predatory experience end users have with printers, and more and more people moving away from computers and onto tablets and phones, I can see print shops taking over home printing. For most people, home printing is just not that common anymore.

Printers work fine over wifi with mobile devices, provided you have a fresh cartridge. Personally can't see that affecting printing persé.

I think printing as a thing is just going to be marginalized by practice.
What do you need to print these days, realisticly.
Almost everything in terms of practical need is digitalized, things like tickets for this that and the other are reduced to a QR code in most cases. All correspondation is digital. Whole administrations only exist in digital space.

[cooky560]

Pretty much the only thing I print these days is flight tickets. Given the cost of failure (losing an expensive trip) not having a dead phone as a point of failure is a plus.