HP is very insistent that users of its printers don't turn to cheaper third-party alternatives for their ink cartridges. It introduced a feature called Dynamic Security in...
If they are selling their printers at a small loss because they want to make money on selling ink that’s basically fine. Sell the ink, make money. If they want to overcharge for the ink people will look elsewhere. If they have to DRM the printers to force people to buy their ink then that’s just fucked up.
To the downvoters, I mean this in a factual sense, since HP sells printers ar a loss, which is a sort of investment, since they sell the ink at a high markup to recoup their costs and earn money.
So if customers buy their cheap printer, but not their expensive ink, then the investment HP made in the customer is a bad investment for HP.
It’s a bad investment because it’s unethical and people care about this sort of stuff (especially when every company under the sun is trying to replicate HP’s vampiric nature).
Eh, sure, that sounds accurate if a bit blunt.
If they are selling their printers at a small loss because they want to make money on selling ink that’s basically fine. Sell the ink, make money. If they want to overcharge for the ink people will look elsewhere. If they have to DRM the printers to force people to buy their ink then that’s just fucked up.
To the downvoters, I mean this in a factual sense, since HP sells printers ar a loss, which is a sort of investment, since they sell the ink at a high markup to recoup their costs and earn money.
So if customers buy their cheap printer, but not their expensive ink, then the investment HP made in the customer is a bad investment for HP.
It’s a bad investment because it’s unethical and people care about this sort of stuff (especially when every company under the sun is trying to replicate HP’s vampiric nature).
“I disagree” - HP CEO
He can disagree all he wants but the article is about their ink pricing plan underperforming.