But that's literally how it works! A certain number of pages are included in the monthly cost, and you're billed for additional pages over the limit.
The problem is that OP cancelled their subscription shortly after receiving a new cartridge. So now the options are:
• Make OP return the cartridge.
• Charge OP for the remainder of their cartridge as a cancellation fee. (Yuck!)
• Prevent OP from using the cartridge.
---
> The fact that ink must be bundled in cartridges that print many pages is HPs problem, not consumers, and they can't work around that with a non-sensical subscription model.
But at the same time: consumers are choosing to buy this subscription. HP provides an option to buy cartridges outright, without limits, and consumers are choosing the subscription instead.
I don't know why consumers are doing that. I would never do it, and I would strongly advise others against it. But many people appear to appreciate the service.
Now, maybe those people are being tricked into the subscription via dark patterns, which would be a problem, but a different one.
IMO, the Problem is that HP markets this as an ink subscription, when it is really a printed page subscription. It's hard to blame someone for thinking that an "ink subscription" would prevent them from fully utilizing ink paid for during the subscription.
This seems like HP is trying to capitalize on all kinds of other product subscription models popular today (eg: Aamazon Subscribe and Save, pet food deliveries, water delivery, etc.), but purposefully making the marketing as misleading as possible.
Don't call it "instant ink", call it a Print Subscription and you'd probably eliminate most of the problems (and sales...).
I honestly thought all the marketing materials I've seen were quite clear about how the service was billed. I don't think changing the name would lead to more or less confusion or sales.
I could easily see myself looking at selecting a plan based on number of pages and thinking that they're just using that to measure the amount of ink. "Plan x: 10 pages/month" meaning that you get the amount of ink you need per month to print 10 average pages, not that once you get the ink you need to keep paying for it.
It's very clear how it works.
But sadly, the people that created the program don't spend enough time on the Internet to learn that the way the general public perceives things often does not match reality.
Ever since Instant Ink started, the Internet has been flooded with morons that think they're geniuses by thinking they can buy 1 month of Instant Ink, cancel the sub, and then keep using the cartridges they think they paid $3 for.
If you sub to Instant Ink, you never owned the ink cartridges. At best, you're renting them. Once you decide to stop paying the rent, you don't get to keep using them. I don't know why some people struggle with this.
Because the internet is flooded with idiots, this is a massive waste of perfectly good ink cardridges.
... or just let them keeps the 50 cents worth of ink and consider it good customer service, let them leave on a positive note so they hopefully choose to come back, rather than burning the bridge? Why do they have to invent some system of enforcement beyond "just don't send any more cartidges"?
I think the incentive to cancel right after receiving a new cartridge would be extremely high, to the point of rendering the whole service non-viable.
HP would have to limit how frequently customers can cancel, institute a waiting period before resubscribing, or track individual abusers and issue lifetime bans.
The first result for genuine HP ink cartridge on amazon is $23, and has a claimed yield of 170 pages. Meanwhile, the cheapest plan for HP instant ink is $0.99/month. If you could subscribe for the cheapest plan, then instantly cancel, you're basically getting a 96% discount on ink cartridges.
Solution: non-refundable first month, make it greater than cost of first ink cartridge. Risk removed.
However, the new problem is that most customers would rather have the current situation pay as you go situation than pay up front.
Id be dammed if I pay full price for a product AND a subscription. If it is a 50% discount (as advertised), the customer is still looking at 3 cartridges before they break even.
Don't you have to buy a printer first? Am I missing something here?
I wonder how many understand what they're buying into here. It was certainly very far from clear to me.
I thought it was an "ink subscription service." That is, you pay your monthly fee and they provide a continual stream of ink to you.
But apparently, it's not that at all. Instead, it's "printing as a service".
The pricing section very clearly mentions pages, not ink cartridges. Also, the first FAQ question literally says:
>How does HP Instant Ink work?
>HP Instant Ink is based on pages, not cartridges [...]
I was thinking that they were using "pages" as a means of measuring the quantity of ink in a way that people can understand, not as literally meaning "pages".
I thought that way because I really believed HP was offering an ink subscription service, and my interpretation is the only one that makes sense if that's what it was.
But it's not. This feels intentionally ambiguous to me. Perhaps it's not, but I bet my interpretation of what they're saying is not rare.
I remain very pleased to avoid HP inkjets, regardless.
When you buy a cartridge it's also measured in pages but you are neither guaranteed that many pages nor limited to that many pages.
>• Make OP return the cartridge.
>• Charge OP for the remainder of their cartridge as a cancellation fee. (Yuck!)
>• Prevent OP from using the cartridge
• Let the customer use up the remaining ink as a gesture of goodwill so they do not hate HP forever with the rage of 1000 forest fires?
> consumers are choosing to buy this subscription.
The will never again once experience this.
Honestly, people have to remember that customers are not a value in a cell in a spreadsheet.
You think people should be able to buy 1 month of Instant Ink, cancel, and keep the cartridges they paid $3 for?
Profit that is desperately needed since the printer itself is being sold at a loss.
I feel like this is the only reasonable solution? We do this for mobile phones and leased cars as well. I think it’s fairly well understood.
https://www.hp.com/us-en/printers/instant-ink/plans.html
You are paying $6 for 100 pages. Then you can add 10 pages for $1 (that amount changes based on the subscription).
We can argue that the program has some scummy aspects but if we are going to argue about this we should at least look up how it actually works here.
WHAT?!
That's insanely expensive. You'd think they'd have to beat the prices to print things out at the local copy shop, at least.
The real moral of this story is that people should stop buying HP printers, or at least HP inkjet printers.
(For a laugh, see also The Verge's 2023 Printer Buying Guide: https://www.theverge.com/23642073/best-printer-2023-brother-...)
Where I am printing a black and white document is around $0.20.
A color print is $0.60.
So 100 black and white pages would be $20 and color would be $60.
Sure you have to add paper to that calculation but considering that is a 500 count for $10-15 thats still makes it cheaper wether you are doing black and white or color.
Now yes you do have to take into account the cost of the machine.
I justified buying a brother laser printer about a year ago after running the numbers for low to mid levels of printing and it just didn't make sense to spend as much as the places around me were charging.
It would be an interesting thing to look at what the pricing for things like this actually is around the country to see if something like this actually makes sense.
If I was doing a super low volume (but consistent) of prints I could see how the math on one of these lower plans makes sense given the options around me.
It's the only copy shop I use, so I have no idea if their pricing is unusually low or not. I assumed it isn't that different in other shops, but it might be.
$1/month -> 10 pages $4/month -> 50 pages $6/month -> 100 pages $12/month -> 300 pages $25/month -> 700 pages
In my mind, the value for the consumer is at the lower prices, where it's nice to have a printer for a few pages a month, but you know the ink is going to dry in the cartridge before you use it. I'd think HP's program will send you a new cartridge when you need it in that case, but I don't know. At higher volumes, it's probably less expensive to buy cartridges as needed, unless all your prints are full page coverage. But then ink jet has a weird niche; it's cheap, but it's worse for low volume printing because the ink can dry and foul the machine, and it's worse at high volume because the print speed isn't near laser (or highvolume impact!) and the supplies are expensive. It's great if you print a few pages a week to a few pages a day. Warm up time can be better or worse, depending on how long it takes to squirt all the ink into the sponge before it prints.
1. is the one you mentioned with drying ink. I have to imagine that given some of the low print volumes that they are anticipating this and it is part of the system?
2. Related to this, are they smart enough to send lower or higher volume ink cartridges based on your plan and usage.
It kinda makes sense that neither of these are outlined in the FAQ since ink management is supposed to be on HP's side with this. But I am curious (not enough to buy a printer and sign up though)
My multifunction printer cost £50 and a ream of paper (500 sheets) is about £6.
Commercial printers charge 10-30p a sheet. I even have an acquaintance with a pay per click service contract on his huge Konica Minolta photocopier who seems to pay the same per click as I do.
When we use “Windows” we don’t complain that they’re not real windows. When we use a Mac, we don’t complain that it’s not real Macintosh apples. It’s just a name.
As the parent commenter says, you pay explicitly for a quota of printed pages, not ink or anything else. Therefore, they do define a price per page, anywhere from 10c on their cheapest plan down to 3.57c on their most expensive.
Is it a shitty practice? Certainly. But you explicitly dont pay for ink, regardless of the name of the product.
The point is, you can't just throw your arms up and say "oh well what a coincidental name HP selected for their product". Misleading names can have a real business impact and might even be intentionally misleading.
The subscription is more than clear. Please show me where it claims in any way shape or form that you are buying a cartridge of ink that you can keep using after your subscription. I’m waiting.
Because it’s called a “printing plan” the entire way until you get to the pricing section, where they use “ink plans” to obviously distinguish it from the “toner plans” next to it.
It also actively talks about pricing being per page, replacements per pages printed, literally everything talks about it being based on pages printed. It even explicitly tells you you won’t get cartridges regularly, but based on pages printed. It’s more than clear that the whole thing is based off pages printed and not the ink itself.
It even explicitly goes over this in the FAQ on the homepage:
> The subscription cartridges only work while your printer is enrolled in HP Instant Ink service, so you will need to purchase store-bought cartridges after your final billing cycle to continue printing.
It’s like you’re trying to manufacture the outrage on the spot based on a loose skimming and the appearance of keywords.
Good advertising should only require loose skimming to know what they're trying to sell you.
Are they transparent about the pricing being per page, the actual thing we’re discussing? Yes.
The goal posts are over there. Gotta love the fact you ignored all of the points in favor of a bad strawman. As I said, manufactures outrage.
> HP Instant Ink uses high-volume cartridges, pricing based on pages printed, and direct-to-customer shipping delivered only when you run low.
> You’ll get your first cartridges when you sign up and then receive replacement cartridges based on how much you print—not every month, like other subscriptions.
Ok, Jan.
This was called out in literally my very first reply to you. I'm done with this bullshit. I'd say have a good day, but I'd rather hope you didn't.
You really can't bother to even look at the page can you? Jesus fucking Christ, the audacity.
Ctrl + F "high-volume cartridges" = no results found
Ctrl + F "first cartridges" = no results found
Edit: And this is the page I'm looking at https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/cv/instantink
In my experience, good advertising is the opposite - it requires extensive reading about what they're trying to sell you - because it's good advertising, not a good encyclopedia.
Nope. If it's misleading, it doesn't matter. Names don't have to be verbatim, but they should not be misleading.
> show me where it claims in any way shape or form that you are buying a cartridge of ink that you can keep using after your subscription
Not my claim. What I'm saying is that I believe the name and advertising could be seen as misleading in a similar way to existing class action lawsuits. It doesn't matter that the hpconnected site is ranked higher in google; the hp.com site for instantink is pretty misleading as seen in all the points in the other thread.
Maybe you don't think veggie straws was misleading either, but a class action lawsuit [1] came of it. My original point was that the name of the product is more significant than you implied in your comment.
1: https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/sensible-portion...