> It's clear that HP's tactics are meant to coax HP printer owners into committing to HP ink, which helps the company drive recurring revenue and makes up for money lost when the printers are sold. Lores confirmed in his interview that HP loses money when it sells a printer and makes money through supplies.

It's one thing (and bad enough) when large actors like Walmart do limited sale below cost events simply to lure in shoppers.

But intentionally and permanently selling anything below cost? That should be outright banned by anti-trust enforcement, as it kills off the market for any potential competitor.

> HP has been largely focused on pushing its monthly ink subscription program, Instant Ink, over the years. In December, HP CFO Marie Myers noted that subscription models like Instant Ink can bring "20 percent uplift on the value of that customer because you're locking that person" in. In its most recent financial report, HP named Instant Ink one of its "key growth areas."

For me as a consumer, this is actually a better deal. I rarely print anything, so it's basically 12$ a year. I seriously wonder how HP actually makes money on that.