back
38 comments
> every time a customer buys a printer, it’s an investment for us. We’re investing [in] that customer, and if this customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies, it’s a bad investment

This is the problem. If they stopped trying to loss lead the printers, and just sold them for a healthy margin above cost of production, this whole issue would go away.

This guy seems to have it backwards. We, as end users (the argument may be different for B2B) are the ones making the investment here.

I’m purchasing a printer with the hope that it spits out pages reliably with as few jams as possible for a reasonable price.

As I get older I’m starting to think that we need to regulate this whole “sell things at a loss in order to maximize profits at a future date” phenomenon. Not that I have any idea what such a regulatory scheme would look like…

At this point I’m not sure that regulated world wouldn’t end with us providing the seller with a healthy profit at the time of purchase AND a healthy profit with overpriced refills.
Maybe the right to repair movement can get us to a world where printers are legally forbidden from not working with third-party supplies, and then the loss leader strategy becomes too risky to sustain (too few people would stick to HP ink).
Nah, he’s got it right unfortunately.

A printer is never an “investment”, it’s always a “liability” because it won’t increase in value if you sell it.

A printer customer, however, is an asset because HP can always use new dirty tricks to squeeze more money out of you over time.

It’s a pedantic difference but it gets to the heart of how these MBA sociopaths see their customers; something to gouge.

It's like safety razors and razorblades. At this point, if they brought up the price to reflect production costs, their competitors would eat their lunch because most people would gravitate to the loss leader.

Only people who do TCO would buy the long-run cheaper option, just like most people buy cheap clothing rather than something that will last.

People are assuming the printers (or razors) are actually unprofitable, just by themselves.

That's possible, and there are "loss leaders" in industries and in retail, but I'd like to see the proof. Maybe the printer refills make it a great business and the printers alone are merely a good business?

We have energy labels on major appliances that help people estimate the long-term cost of ownership. Maybe this needs to be extended to printers and razors.
I was about to flag this BS, but you did it for me.

Do you have any numbers for their gross margin on the printers? Because if it's not negative, then his "investment" claim is indeed BS.

RMS's start of open source came with his hatred of printers.

https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html

> In true engineer-to-engineer fashion, the conversation was cordial but blunt. After briefly introducing himself as a visitor from MIT, Stallman requested a copy of the laser-printer source code so that he could port it to the PDP-11. To his surprise, the professor refused to grant his request.

>"He told me that he had promised not to give me a copy," Stallman says.

I don't get why people buy inkjets at all. You can get laser or CISS.

>I don't get why people buy inkjets at all. You can get laser or CISS.

Because people don't know. They go to the store and buy the cheapest one. They don't consider ink costs, and so they end up saving $50 up front and then losing $500 over the life of the printer. The "just buy a Brother laser printer" advice is not widespread.

> saving $50 up front and then losing $500 over the life of the printer

Ha! Ha! Ha! Whew, that’s a good one. Let me catch my breath.

I once had a mid range HP inkjet. Think it cost about $200. Only printed a few times a year. It would go through 3-4 ink cartridges per year, with me printing almost nothing. Ink was cheap, about $30. Pretty much needed a new ink cartridge every time I printed. Was a networked printer, didn’t even see the computer reboot, etc.

That damn thing easily cost over $100/year doing nothing.

Would have lasted forever if I hadn’t thrown it away in mint condition.

Eventually got a laser printer…

Toner is expensive, but it at least doesn’t evaporate! (I lowered calibration frequency settings too)

For some laser models the toner cartridges are almost as expensive as a laser, hardly anyone would go for them other than business users.
> I don't get why people buy inkjets at all. You can get laser or CISS.

Because not all inkjets are crap. I have an HP Deskjet 4515 Ink Advantage. This thing doesn't dry out, prints out beautiful text and photos. Even though the color inks are not pigment, they do not fade out in 5 years.

The inks are cheap, last a long time, and that thing works with everything from macOS to CUPS to driverless (AirPrint, Driverless CUPS, etc.).

Bottom of the barrel printers are always bad, regardless of technology. What you want is high-end home, or entry level SoHo printers with proper network support, replaceable rollers (in lasers) and good firmware.

These devices are not cheap, and most of them are not sold with razor and blades model. You pay a good money for the hardware, and that thing lives on for more than a decade with top notch reliability.

I'd buy original cartridges to my printers everyday, because a good printer is worthy of the investment, and there's something called ink/toner quality. It's not colored water (or simple black dust) to begin with.

These companies do not have ink/toner labs for no reason.

Given what HP is saying about how they want the printer business to operate, I think it's too risky to buy any HP printer at all.
I have a Brother inkjet and it’s great, it has never failed me and it works flawlessly every single time.
> Last Thursday, HP CEO Enrique Lores addressed the company’s controversial practice of bricking printers when users load them with third-party ink. Speaking to CNBC Television, he said, "We have seen that you can embed viruses in the cartridges. Through the cartridge, [the virus can] go to the printer, [and then] from the printer, go to the network."

I can't stop laughing. He can't be serious? If this was true, it would HP's fault for putting a chip in the cartridges in the first place! A cartridge should just be a container of ink, there shouldn't be a place to put a virus.

My thoughts exactly!

This is basically the definition of Racketeering!

I don’t personally use printers too much, but about five years ago I got a laser printer and never looked back. Apart from the low cost to entry, I can’t figure why anyone would want to use inkjet printers. Total cost of ownership is much lower and reliability far exceeds inkjets.
Printing color, especially on photo paper, would be one reason for going inkjet, otherwise I agree with you. That said, after many years with laser printers I bought about 7 years ago an Epson wp4515 (now out of production I believe) which still works like a charm; no external software is needed and it is 100% compatible with Linux. Not sure if their newer models are that good though.
If you need color, buy a color laser.

If you don't need color, buy a B&W laser.

If you need photo quality, print them at Walmart.

I feel like the “investing in the customer” part always seems the case with HP. The products never work properly unless you are willing to pay them more money or live with the extreme amount of bloatware in their PCs.
So, every concern a confession. HP paid some third party to make cartridges with viruses in the identity chips?
Was just looking at buying a new printer a few minutes ago. Do people have recommendations for printers free of all this HP-style nonsense?
Brother laser printers.
Sadly, even Brother is heading to the dark side... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
fwiw, I have a brother laser printers with chipped cartridges.

It's a 20 second job to remove the chip from the original and insert into the new cartridge. Completely agree it's not something that you should need to do, but at least it's an issue you can work around with a bread knife

HP is trash. Is Brother still decent, or have they also started enshitifying their printers?
I have a couple of Brother Laser Printers at home, as well as several Brother Label Printers at work - Haven't had any issues to date. All work great under both Windows and Linux.

I've used both genuine and aftermarket Toner for the Lasers and the same for the Label printers without issue.

For label printers, avoid Dymo like the plague. They stopped Linux support and now include bidirectional RFID chips in their label spools to lock out after-market supplies. The remaining label count is decremented on the chip as you print.

How recently did you buy your Brother printers? I've been hearing that the more recent ones are including ink DRM.

I need to replace my printer and will go with a laser, but I've been getting such mixed signals about various brands that I have no idea which one would be acceptable. I'd love to hear that Brother is an acceptable one.

The brother inkjet I purchased four years ago was much harder to get fake chipped cartridges for than previous models. I got there I the end but at greater cost than I expected. I wouldn't buy another basic brother inkjet any more. In the past they did t even have chips. It has now died and I have just about given up compatibles or refilling. The manufacturers are getting too clever and the market for hacks is disappearing with the consumer printer market. Pay up for a tank filled inkjet or a laser now I think.
Not the commenter you originally addressed, but I used to use a Brother printer that was purchased around 2016-2017. I once bought third-party cartridges and the printer noticed that the cartridges weren't first-party and refused to print. I can't recall the model number, but it was an inkjet printer, not laser.

I didn't have any other objections to the printer, for what it's worth.

Hello, I have a 10+ year old MFC-9335CDW and a ~1 year old MFC-L3760CDW laser, so far no issues with DRM - I buy the aftermarket cartridges from InkStation[1], but they seem to be just generic rebrands

The label printers are 5+ year old QL-500 (x 3) and a ~3 month old QL-810W (x 2 at he office). I really hope they're not taking the DRM route for future models!

[1] https://www.inkstation.com.au/brother-mfcl3760cdw-toner-cart...

Keep in mind that even Brother is not immune to this and saying this as a Brother owner myself. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
Yes Brother is decent. I only print a few pages a year, but I purchased a large Brother laser printer just so I never have to deal with printer bullshit again.
Keep in mind that even Brother is going to the dark side. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131