Hacker News Reader

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.

> 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...

https://www.milkcratesdirect.com/blog/everything-you-need-to...

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-...

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.

Ehh, From the website name you might infer that they sell milk crates. It stands to reason that a company which sells milk crates has lots of ideas for things to do with milk crates. It also stands to reason that a company which sells milk crates wants you to buy said milk crates from them instead of, say, stealing them.

It's fun to argue about what analogy best describes this situation, but ultimately that doesn't matter. It's really about what was advertised by the company, and what the consumer agreed to in this transaction.

it's also about increasingly hostile profit opportunities being realized and normalized, enabled by tech (its decreasing cost, increasing prevalance, and increasing internet-connectivity) despite the externalized costs (in this case, the environmental cost of destroying still-useful materials, especially materials that are quite difficult to dispose of responsibly). this is an example of profit-seeking behavior acting against the good of society and consumers (or government) should resist this increasing trend.

In this case, OP is actually part of the problem, by voting with his wallet for these "hostile profit opportunities." HP has his money, so in their eyes, his vote is for this dark pattern. By buying these products, people are ensuring they continue to act against the good of society and consumers.

EDIT: and for the down-voters, I'll clarify: I fully support OP here. OP was clearly deceived by HP's marketing. But unfortunately we live in a world created by lawyers where there is no right or wrong--there's just "what the letter of the law lets you get away with".

> 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.

No, because they charged you $1 for every bottle they delivered. You bought the entire bottle upfront (you may have paid in arrears, but when it was delivered you agreed to pay)

Imagine instead the milkman drops 10 bottles on your doorstep. Some days you only want 1 bottle for tea and a bit of cereal, but other days you make some pancakes and need 6 bottles. At the end of the day the milkman takes back the unused milk and charges you for what you used.

Aside from the problem of milk spoiling that seems a perfectly reasonable model.

A potentially better analogy might be a library. The library borrowing model existed long before software, so one can't argue that modern software subscription models "enabled" this "predatory" practice.

I can borrow as much as I can read from the library, but I can't keep the books I haven't read at home while I am not a member. The books never really belong to me, just as the HP ink never really belong to users (until they are printed onto paper, at which point they become a constituent part of a "page" which _is_ owned by the user).

I think the cognitive dissonance arises because this "borrowing" model is being applied to a _consumable product_, which is not common.

For this analogy to work the library would have to trash the books you borrowed after you cancelled your subscription.

Perhaps a train then.

I buy an annual season ticket for a London-Reading journey with a monthly direct debit.

I then decide after 3 months I no longer want to use it, so I cancel the direct debit, and my account is settled

The train still goes, I'm no longer allowed to use it.

When the product costs essentially little to nothing to manufacture - in comparison to the cost charged to the consumer - it may as well be considered a durable good to the manufacturer which allows you to "borrow" it for a fee that far exceeds the cost of lifetime replacement.

Imagine if your kid really liked drinking a lot of milk, so the milk man gave you double the amount of bottles one morning for no extra charge. Because its an "all you can drink" membership. This is sort of what the HP service is like

Within a membership limit, HP can send you 1 cartridge of 5 at a time. The number of cartridges are not pre-determined when you start paying

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.

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.

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.

> I mean just look at the pricing of the program, $6 a month for 100 pages.

I mean, I pay $30 for 2 generic laser toner cartridges that last upwards of a year at my home (and my kids are prolific users of the Canon laser printer).

$6/mo is usurious just like $30 cartridges.

HP has gotten greedy and instead of making this transition to a subscription model easy they're getting well deserved backlash.

HP has separate costs for ink/toner cartridges. $4/mo for 100 pages.

Aside from that, they cover shipping and recycling of old cartridges, and they include color/photo printing in that prices (not sure if you that's relevant for toner though? not a printer expert.)

$2/mo for 50 pages is a pretty great deal, as someone who seldom prints.

> Now if they bricked the printer

That allegation was essentially made: "Some even report not being able to print with cartridges they bought independently."

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.

Think of it this way: to provide a monthly subscription, they can either send a new cartridge once per month with 100 pages in it (with all the shipping, plastic, production, etc costs associated with that), or they can ship one six times bigger a single time. That’s much better for the environment.

If they couldn’t turn off cartridges when subscriptions stop, they’d have to send less-filled cartridges. Otherwise, there’d be huge incentive to sign up for one month, get your big cartridge, and cancel.

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.

That's not entirely true, as they only want official HP ink, as per a post of a few days 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

it isn't controversial that a company would rather destroy a resource than let someone have it, but some of us strongly oppose this

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).

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.

They are not destroying any resources, you are free to cut the cartridge open and use the ink or electronic components as you like.

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"!

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

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

> 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.

> However, ink chemistry is not some straightforward mixing and the risks are largely downplayed by 3rd party ink manufacturers.

Exactly and precisely 0.0% of printer manufacturers make their own ink.

Almost all printer ink in the world comes from a very small region, a single business park really, of Malaysia. Some is also made in Europe and Japan.

It is made by companies like Toyo Chem, DIC, Sakata, and Swan and transported directly to the facilities that fill the cartridges.

Printer companies have almost no input into the process, they buy based on spec from a list of offerings.

3rd party cartridge manufacturers buy the same ink, with the same specs, from the same manufacturers as printer manufacturers.

If a printer manufacturer claims to have an exclusive formula they are either lying, or the ink maker lied about giving them exclusivity because you can buy any ink from anyone at anytime. If the manufacturer wants to keep up appearances they'll change a single digit on the product ID and claim it is a different product, they don't care where the drums are going so long as the wire transfer goes through.

Even the ink manufacturers OFTEN don't "create" ink. They just blend pigments from pigment manufacturers together with solvents from solvent manufacturers in formulae that are pre-determined between the pigment and solvent makers.

If a customers says "I need an ink that does x" they go to the pigment and solvent suppliers and ask "what do I need to buy so the ink does x" and the suppliers tell them and the ink manufacturer follows the formula to the letter.

I don't think that's quite right. I work at HP (I hardly dare to say it in this thread hahaha), and I am quite sure that the full formulation of the inks is developed in house (at least for large format). I do think it's true that there only exist a few hundred pigments, and those are not developed at HP. And likewise for other ingredients I guess.

I am not involved in ink development myself, but I know that when we get a new ink from the other side of the ocean (with improved properties, or compying with updated regulations), many printing parameters have to be changed or new print mode algorithms have to be developed to maintain print quality. When it's just not possible, there may be hardware changes, or there is some more alchemy, and we get a new version of the ink. And so on. This can literally take years, and sometimes it just doesn't work and a new ink development path is abandoned

So, Why HP and Xerox have their own Ink and Toner labs specifically, and Xerox develops their own pigments/molecules (as they like to say)?

> print longevity discussions

The biggest problem with inkjet is clogged nozzles from dried ink. The best solution is to flow through a bit of ink every now and again when the printer would otherwise be idle. The business model of expensive, vendor-locked ink maximally leverages this reality against the customer's interests to the detriment of print quality and nozzle longevity. So no, vendors don't use DRM to maximize longevity. Quite the opposite. Lol.

> The biggest problem with inkjet is clogged nozzles from dried ink

My almost a decade old HP Deskjet 4515 Ink advantage is extremely resilient against cartridge clogs. In standard mode, its printing pattern tolerates clogged lines so well, so that you can't see any print quality degradation unless you get a "print quality report".

Moreover, a couple of cleaning runs unclogs all the nozzles 99% of the time, even after 6 months of hiatus.

I never replaced a cartridge because of a clog since I bought that thing. It also routinely underestimates cartridge life. Currently it claims the black cartridge is empty, but it's printing with the quality of a new cartridge.

None of my HP Printers (4515, 5150, 500C and another entry level AIO) never let me down in the cartridge department, even after long idle periods. That entry level AIO just worn out internally, I gave others away because I was upgrading. 4515 is my current workhorse.

The only printer which had cartridge clogging problems was my Canon BJC4300. That thing made me decide to buy nothing but HP only.

That Canon model number looked familiar, googled it and yep it was the same POS I owned ages ago. Can confirm massive clogging problems.

> 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.

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.

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.

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