Printer manufacturers still blocking 3rd party cartridges via 'updates'..?

mksysb

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

As the OP, let me have one more say. Trying to 'have your cake and eat it', as someone above sneeringly puts it, is a quite reasonable impulse by Mr Average Consumer in a scenario which has been quite deliberately and unreasonably skewed to profits maximisation by the manufacturers. They are, to put it bluntly, 'asking for it'. MSE is totally about trying to trying to economise, so let's have no more of this patrician snobbery.

Presumably the likes of HP know that some people - the ones who can be bothered - will try to buy BOTH the machine AND the ink cheaply but this will be far outweighed by the mass of docile punters who are just suckered. For them to then go on and try to operate what appears to be an anti-competitive practice and stymy even those few people by backdoor software blocking AFTER the machine has become the customer's property borders on, or is even wholly mired in, illegality.

It is as if they are claiming that THEIR ink is somehow unique, specially produced and precious - that it is the only ink that can physically operate on the machine and so must be bought from them... when everyone knows that ink is a dirt cheap commodity. Personally, I see no obvious connection between the manufacture of ink and the manufacture of printers. If I buy a Ford, I don't expect, as the owner of that vehicle, to then be obliged to buy 'Ford petrol' for ever afterwards.

A test case, please. Maybe the courts can help us.

This racket has been going on for years and HAS to finish. Why do governments NEVER tackle clear and obvious abuses/problems like this which beset the average citizen? Too busy with staring in the political mirror and tarting up their reputation legacy on what they fondly imagine to be the 'big issues', I expect, instead of getting their hands dirty with things which would actually help people...

A rather stupid analogy, but lets play along
Suppose Ford said you can have a new car with a discount of 50% if you use Ford petrol which is more expensive than normal petrol.  You could then choose, based on your mileage if it was a good deal.  If not for you  could get another car at full price and use cheaper petrol.  Would you buy the cheap car and then expect to be able to fill it with cheap petrol?

Boxman

Suppose Ford said you can have a new car with a discount of 50% if you use Ford petrol which is more expensive than normal petrol.  You could then choose, based on your mileage if it was a good deal.  If not for you  could get another car at full price and use cheaper petrol.  Would you buy the cheap car and then expect to be able to fill it with cheap petrol?

No, but if Ford (alternatively the printer manufacturer) were not clearly upfront in saying you had to use their petrol as a condition of the deal then it is surely not unreasonable to think you can use any source that you fancy.

RainbowsInTheSpray

Boxman said:

Suppose Ford said you can have a new car with a discount of 50% if you use Ford petrol which is more expensive than normal petrol.  You could then choose, based on your mileage if it was a good deal.  If not for you  could get another car at full price and use cheaper petrol.  Would you buy the cheap car and then expect to be able to fill it with cheap petrol?

No, but if Ford (alternatively the printer manufacturer) were not clearly upfront in saying you had to use their petrol as a condition of the deal then it is surely not unreasonable to think you can use any source that you fancy.

Thank you for highlighting that which is obvious, apparently, to all but 'mksysb'.
Show me the printer manufacturer who IS 'clearly upfront' about this trickery. I repeat: we need action on this clear abuse.

JJ_Egan

(I repeat: we need action on this clear abuse. )

Look forward to your further action do keep us informed .

Neil_Jones

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

 I repeat: we need action on this clear abuse.

Do we?  Easiest "action" is not to buy a printer.  Then you won't need to buy expensive ink for something you don't own.  Problem solved, not?  If you need to print anything either a) pay as you go via the library (as and when they reopen if they haven't done so already where you are) at relatively inexpensive rates (possibly), or b) find somewhere physical (or online) you can upload something to print and claim it way.  Slower (and probably not cost effective for printing less than maybe 20 pages at a time), but saves you the initial outlay.

RainbowsInTheSpray

Neil_Jones said:

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

 I repeat: we need action on this clear abuse.

Do we?  Easiest "action" is not to buy a printer.  Then you won't need to buy expensive ink for something you don't own.  Problem solved, not?  If you need to print anything either a) pay as you go via the library (as and when they reopen if they haven't done so already where you are) at relatively inexpensive rates (possibly), or b) find somewhere physical (or online) you can upload something to print and claim it way.  Slower (and probably not cost effective for printing less than maybe 20 pages at a time), but saves you the initial outlay.

Yes, we do. Unambiguously and decidedly.
Deceitful sales tactics are generally against the interest of the consumer... or do you not agree? I can only put the baffling lack of government action on this, as with so many other rip-off situations, down to quiet conversations during Sunday morning golf rounds...

Neil_Jones

Good luck is all I'm going to say.  Can't see anybody else complaining so if you want the mantel, be my guest.

Undervalued

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

Neil_Jones said:

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

 I repeat: we need action on this clear abuse.

Do we?  Easiest "action" is not to buy a printer.  Then you won't need to buy expensive ink for something you don't own.  Problem solved, not?  If you need to print anything either a) pay as you go via the library (as and when they reopen if they haven't done so already where you are) at relatively inexpensive rates (possibly), or b) find somewhere physical (or online) you can upload something to print and claim it way.  Slower (and probably not cost effective for printing less than maybe 20 pages at a time), but saves you the initial outlay.

Yes, we do. Unambiguously and decidedly.
Deceitful sales tactics are generally against the interest of the consumer... or do you not agree? I can only put the baffling lack of government action on this, as with so many other rip-off situations, down to quiet conversations during Sunday morning golf rounds...

Well I don't agree so, in my opinion, "No, we don't" [need action on the clear abuse] as you describe it. 

In addition to echoing the points made by others about these printers obviously being sold as lost leaders, I suspect most of the aftermarket cartridge providers are actually infringing the printer manufacturers' patents and copyrights in the embedded software in the cartridge chips.

Epson, amongst others, also offer printers with larger ink tanks that are intended to be refilled by the user from large bottles of ink. Obviously on those they cannot control what make of ink you use, unless of course you need to return the printer under warranty!

HP offer a system where you subscribe monthly for a certain number of pages. With that you have an absolutely known printing cost and any head "cleaning" is at HP's expense.

So there are at least three different systems available to the consumer, most of who are intelligent enough not to need the nanny state to hold their hand on this issue.

RumRat

Why are people printing so much that the ink cost becomes such a problem?  21st century, do we really need all that paper lying around?
Best thing I ever did was to get rid of my printer, I've found that I didn't really need it and was printing things because I thought I had to or just because I had one.
I know people that tick the boxes to go paperless at the utilities and even their banks, then print out the paperwork at home.
I know there will be rare occasions when joe average needs to print something and indeed, I occasionally do, usually on the insistence of some other entity, but not enough to warrant a printer at home.
I'm not preaching, just saying that it's worth asking the question.

Undervalued

RumRat said:

Why are people printing so much that the ink cost becomes such a problem?  21st century, do we really need all that paper lying around?
Best thing I ever did was to get rid of my printer, I've found that I didn't really need it and was printing things because I thought I had to or just because I had one.
I know people that tick the boxes to go paperless at the utilities and even their banks, then print out the paperwork at home.
I know there will be rare occasions when joe average needs to print something and indeed, I occasionally do, usually on the insistence of some other entity, but not enough to warrant a printer at home.
I'm not preaching, just saying that it's worth asking the question.

Many people, myself included, find it far easier to proof read reliably on paper than on a screen. I have spent quite a lot of time over the last few years reading lengthy drafts and suggesting corrections. For that I use a second hand laser printer from Gumtree and the cheapest packs of A4 paper that Tesco or Asda will bring me with my groceries. Ultimately it goes in the recycling bin but it is the only way I can do it properly.