HP CEO says customers who don't use the company's supplies are "bad investments"
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
nitebird
Posts: 135 +130
HP printers go off the "razor and blades" business model. They sell the printers at a loss and make the money back on the ink. If people don't buy the ink, the company goes out of business.
I still use an old Brother printer from 15 years ago when printers were 500$ in today's dollars. You can get a much more advanced HP printer today for 200$ but ink is where they make the money back.
Not defending HP here, even today you can buy a more expensive printer that comes with cheap ink refills, done.
I still use an old Brother printer from 15 years ago when printers were 500$ in today's dollars. You can get a much more advanced HP printer today for 200$ but ink is where they make the money back.
Not defending HP here, even today you can buy a more expensive printer that comes with cheap ink refills, done.
I've had HPs and Epsons and others. I definitely do not like HP's policy on ink/laser cartridges and this is really nothing new. There was a law suit some years ago about third-party laser cartridges and reman cartridges. HP lost that one and likely will lose this one.
Furthermore, to be less douchey, they could license that IP to third party manufacturers, but they don't. As far as quality, though, the HPs are pretty rock solid, unless you're buying one of their ultra-cheap ink jet models. The laser printers are good. Interestingly, I have an HP laser and have not had a problem with third party cartridges.
Ecurb
Posts: 60 +42
HP use to be the printer that just worked (and with any major software application, forms, etc.)but it has been a long time since those days. I just replaced a ten year old Brother which worked great for years with an Epson eco tank. A five year old HP inkjet I inherited from my mother-in-law had a failed LCD display so I recycled it. It is nice to have competition in a market. This is the way.
Athlonite
Posts: 500 +235
This statement.... Lores continued to warn against the dangers of using non-HP cartridges and what will happen if you do. "In many cases, it can create all sorts of issues from the printer stopping working because the ink has not been designed to be used in our printer (is that because it's not the cheap crap you put in the tanks), to even creating security issues." (the only security issue here is HP themselves)
has been proven to be so much bollocks it's not funny more often than not 3rd party ink was proven to be better quality ink than the crap HP were using in their cartridges
has been proven to be so much bollocks it's not funny more often than not 3rd party ink was proven to be better quality ink than the crap HP were using in their cartridges
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,295 +2,111
They are total trash and support is criminally poor. Honestly I consider HP as one of the worst hardware vendors out there and wouldn't touch any of their products especially laptops with a 100' pole.
We have 2 HP printers. A 15 year old B&W that has used 3rd party toner since day 1 and a color laser that is 6 or 7 years old. It also works fine with 3rd party toner. The day HP nerfs either of them I will NOT be replacing with another HP.
DonquixoteIII
Posts: 174 +105
Give me the printer and I will gladly buy YOUR ink. But charge me 1.5 times what the printer is worth, THEN charge me three times what the ink is worth? And I am not just looking at HP ere. Epson, Canon, Brother. All over-priced units, built in obsolescence, and way overpriced consumables. Look at Epson's paper prices. Canon's inks. Bleh. Printers are a crap-trap.
thewelshbrummie
Posts: 31 +16
ZedRM
Posts: 2,386 +1,557
That guy is a brainless twit clueless to reality. WE pay for our printers. WE pay for the paper that goes into it. WE pay for the ink that is used to print on said paper with said printer. HP(or anyone else) has zero right to block us from buying, and using, whatever supplies, including ink, we wish to use.
This is yet another example of corporate low-lives trying to control things they have no right to control. HP is making enemies that can and will hurt them financially. They are too ignorant to see the forest for the trees..
Last edited:
ZedRM
Posts: 2,386 +1,557
That is and has always been a mentally inept business model.
True, and very likely. They deserve to loose. I hope the the final judgement is especially harsh.
BigMeatyClackers
Posts: 57 +70
The customer is the investment?
It’s worse than that.I subscribed to the ink program. When I was working everything was fine. I retired and my need for printing and supplies went way down.subsequently I canceled the subscription but had unused hp subscription ink cartridges. Sometime later I needed to print a document. I loaded the new hp cartridges and attempted to use MY printer with Subscription hp cartridges and the printer gave me a message that I could not use NON hp cartridges. They are making it impossible to use my printer with my legal HP product. That’s as low as I’ve ever experienced. I’ve owned HP printed forever even as they succeeded in forcing me to upgrade as new models appeared.im done. Douchbagery of the highest order.
ZedRM
Posts: 2,386 +1,557
Exactly! Absolute twaddle!
Underdog
Posts: 558 +406
The reason why people are complaining here and posting their experiences is for the benefit of those less experienced who may learn something useful before they part with their money. If all they see is the BS the manufacturer's lies and promises there is no way they will know what might be useful from what is soon to be landfill.
erickmendes
Posts: 1,179 +659
Next step: HP DRM enabled paper subscription, so they can assure you don't print using paper that may not be compatible with HP printers' ink to avoid paper malware that can carry out to your mouse and then to your 5G cellphone network. ... Such a truck load of bs...
Freddie159
Posts: 184 +112
You can already get the cartridges refilled at several name brand places and they will even reset the chip so it thinks it's a brand new cartridge.
This strategy of the CEO is like when Musk took over Twitter and fired everyone and then complained when nothing was getting done and he didn't know how to fix it. I hope the HP Board reveals to him that what he's saying is not akin to expanding the bottom line and therefore his pay!!
WhiteLeaff
Posts: 659 +1,284
Yeah, For those interested, the Epson Ecotank line is excellent, it doesn't tend to give problems easily, and the ink it comes with is enough for up to 5000-6000 prints. Then you can buy another refill kit very cheaply.
There is no single reason to continue using HP and deal with this type of headache.
There is no single reason to continue using HP and deal with this type of headache.
ZedRM
Posts: 2,386 +1,557
And HP would likely try that...
Bobbydpue
Posts: 840 +662
HP selling printers at a loss isn't the customer's problem. HP shouldn't expect people who bought a cheap printer to also buy premium priced ink cartridges. That doesn't make any sense.
Games aren't the same as ink cartridges.
ZedRM
Posts: 2,386 +1,557
Because no one cares. Most of us would rather pay a few hundred for a quality printer we can refill with any ink/toner WE choose, than buy cheap, garbage printers and have ink prices dictated to us by little Hitler-wanna-be's.
atomicgirl
Posts: 91 +88
I've never owned an HP. I've only ever owned Lexmark and Canon. With that being said, I completely understand HP's position. Third parties aren't selling these cheaper inks out of consumer advocacy but to undercut companies with dupes that both poach customers and glom off the brand. This isn't fair, because on top of HP, Canon and others selling at a loss, they have a lot more overhead producing their products than some fly by night operation that didn't put in the expense in the way of R and D, advertising, salaries, etc.
If third parties want to provide cheaper ink to the public, what they need to do is to either negotiate for the rights to use a brand's name or compete with it by launching its own line of printers. But they can't have their cake and eat it, too, where they dupe a brand's product to poach customers and keep all the profits because if it weren't for the name recognition, they wouldn't have buyers in the first place.
Another issue with this is that nobody has the right to undermine what a company charges for its product, because it's no one's business except its own. That doesn't mean that the company is automatically right, but that it should be up to the market to decide whether a price is right for a product or not.
To use an analogy, let's say that you put out a product that you feel is worth $40. What should happen is that by way of customer feedback, you should know whether you can keep selling it for that price or not. Maybe customers are happy with it. Maybe they feel it should be lower. Maybe you'll be smart enough to lower the price if they're unhappy or stupid enough to not and lose money in the process. The point is, it's a judgment call that should be left to you.
Well, imagine that the government stepped in and went, "We don't like that you're charging $40, so we'll dupe it so that people will get a near exact copy for $10. And we won't pay you for the difference or negotiate a license so that you'll still get your $40 per product. We'll just do it so that you're losing sales to this dupe." Everyone would be justifiably outraged if the government meddled between a business and its customers in such a heavy-handed way, but for some reason, no one seems to see that this is exactly what poachers are doing.
If third parties want to provide cheaper ink to the public, what they need to do is to either negotiate for the rights to use a brand's name or compete with it by launching its own line of printers. But they can't have their cake and eat it, too, where they dupe a brand's product to poach customers and keep all the profits because if it weren't for the name recognition, they wouldn't have buyers in the first place.
Another issue with this is that nobody has the right to undermine what a company charges for its product, because it's no one's business except its own. That doesn't mean that the company is automatically right, but that it should be up to the market to decide whether a price is right for a product or not.
To use an analogy, let's say that you put out a product that you feel is worth $40. What should happen is that by way of customer feedback, you should know whether you can keep selling it for that price or not. Maybe customers are happy with it. Maybe they feel it should be lower. Maybe you'll be smart enough to lower the price if they're unhappy or stupid enough to not and lose money in the process. The point is, it's a judgment call that should be left to you.
Well, imagine that the government stepped in and went, "We don't like that you're charging $40, so we'll dupe it so that people will get a near exact copy for $10. And we won't pay you for the difference or negotiate a license so that you'll still get your $40 per product. We'll just do it so that you're losing sales to this dupe." Everyone would be justifiably outraged if the government meddled between a business and its customers in such a heavy-handed way, but for some reason, no one seems to see that this is exactly what poachers are doing.
I wish people would quit buying these HP printers. It is an old business model of sell the printer for cheap and profit off of the ink cartridges. It is the whole reason why HP continues to make a stink about it and why they waste so much time, and money, DRMing their ink.
I would rather, and I have, pay more upfront for a printer and use whatever ink I want.
I would rather, and I have, pay more upfront for a printer and use whatever ink I want.
"...and our long-term objective is to make printing a subscription."
HP Printers are a bad investement. Their ink shenanigans aside, they've started trying to drive all printer models towards requiring their HP Smart software to run (which requires an account to use) and making it hard if not impossible to find plain drivers. Couple that with their newer "e" series lineup that requires you to go online and create an account to activate the printer to even use it (even if it has a built-in web server), that tries to rope you into an ink subscription and you have every reason to avoid any of their printing products.
HP Printers are a bad investement. Their ink shenanigans aside, they've started trying to drive all printer models towards requiring their HP Smart software to run (which requires an account to use) and making it hard if not impossible to find plain drivers. Couple that with their newer "e" series lineup that requires you to go online and create an account to activate the printer to even use it (even if it has a built-in web server), that tries to rope you into an ink subscription and you have every reason to avoid any of their printing products.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The OLED Burn-In Test: 9-Month Update- user478318 replied
