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

IvanOpinion

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

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.

Strictly speaking when I bought my HP printer the box and instructions said it uses HP X301 cartridges, similarly the box for my old Canon printer said it used Canon 580 black and 581 colour cartridges.  Nowhere, on either, does it say it will accept any old cartridge (that may or may not claim compatibility with the one they state).

To follow up on your analogy nowhere does it say you can use any old oil in its engine (even if it is chip fat labelled as 'suitable for Fords').

RainbowsInTheSpray

Undervalued said:

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.

In which case, as a self-avowed supporter of the use of underhand and quasi-illegal tactics by manufacturers, perhaps you should consider your continued membership of a site which is explicitly championing consumers. Along with the vast majority of consumers, I do not have the time to research in minute detail every possible outcome of my purchasing decisions. Quite reasonably, I rely on government regulation to ensure that I am not being suckered at every turn by sellers out to mislead me.

The 'nanny state', as you tendentiously describe it, is allegedly there for a reason... to act on behalf of the population. Note: not on behalf of companies or behind-the-scenes cartels. This is a subtle difference which you - and many in the current government - appear not to grasp.


Oh, and the phrase is 'loss leader', not 'lost'... although perhaps that term is ironically apposite in respect of the broad thrust of what you say...

DCFC79

Been using compatibles for a while now with no issues at all.

Neil_Jones

RainbowsInTheSpray said:

Undervalued said:

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.

In which case, as a self-avowed supporter of the use of underhand and quasi-illegal tactics by manufacturers, perhaps you should consider your continued membership of a site which is explicitly championing consumers. Along with the vast majority of consumers, I do not have the time to research in minute detail every possible outcome of my purchasing decisions. Quite reasonably, I rely on government regulation to ensure that I am not being suckered at every turn by sellers out to mislead me.

The 'nanny state', as you tendentiously describe it, is allegedly there for a reason... to act on behalf of the population. Note: not on behalf of companies or behind-the-scenes cartels. This is a subtle difference which you - and many in the current government - appear not to grasp.

Come off it sunshine, this is a commercial decision to charge peanuts for the printer and more for the (genuine) ink.  It would be very surprising if government are not aware of printing costs as it is, what with parliament bills, statutory instruments and white/green papers that get published, indeed Parliament probably gets through half a forest every year on its own never mind every other department and quango of government.

I would respectfully say your argument does not stand up.  There are no "underhand" tactics, it isn't a state secret HP and Canon and whatever else ink is expensive, you only have to look at Google to work that out or look in the appropriate shelves at the place of purchase.  Its simple as the fact if you don't research the ink prices before you buy the printer, that's your own fault.   A nanny state would say everybody should have this printer and this ink, and all that will do is shove the prices up if its the only one available, especially if you have to buy it yourself.

Anyway its pretty obvious you only want to hear certain things that support your argument and everybody else in your mind is wrong no matter what gets said.  So I think now we may be at a point of saying I'm out.