Slashdot Mirror


Ink Cartridges with Built-In Self-Destruct Dates

Linker3000 writes "The Inquirer has an article about HP ink cartridges having a built-in expiry date that can cause them to become unusable even if they aren't empty! Another twist on the 'chipped cartridge' stories--and also another kick in the teeth (and wallet) for the consumer methinks." This isn't really a new problem - here's a good piece about the problem.

22 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. All these fancy ink and 'laser' printers by Lord+Fren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't have this problem, I'm still using a dot matrix from 1993! I have only replaced the ribbon once, and it still prints. (really light and grey/bluish)

  2. Re:Congratulations! by DirkDaring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about those that let their ink sit in their printer for years and don't care about quality? Or those that put in a cartridge that been in storage for years and the print quality is just fine?

  3. Time To Expiration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article says that the expiration date is 4 1/2 years after the cartridge is put into the printer. Surely, more than 99.9% of users will run out of ink well before the expiration date.

    1. Re:Time To Expiration by mirko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, last week, I actually replaced a 7 year old cartridge from my HPDeskjet 510 (bought in Nov1993) : I don't print that often but I expect it to be possible at any moment.
      HP has sold me a printer for the last time, next one will be another brand... unless I find printer refills for my old ink cartridges.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Time To Expiration by fyonn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While this may be a nuisance for a very tiny number of people the timeframes seem reasonable to me. If you have a printer sitting with a single cartridge for more than 2 years you really dont need a printer.

      it seems reasonable for a printer compny to leech mponey from it's customers because they aren't buying enough ink? to add restrictions that were not there before, for no better reaosn than to make more money andmake a fully paid for product useless. if thats not illegal it's at least immoral in my book.

      dave

    3. Re:Time To Expiration by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      First, it's 4.5 years after manufacturing date or 30 months in the printer whitchever comes first.

      That means if a store sells you a 4 year old cartridge, you only have 6 months left.

      But that doesn't matter, it's about principles. Where do you draw the line? If 99% of users are unaffected it's OK to purposely breake products? 95%? 90? 80? 60? By your logic, HP could dower these times a bit just for kicks and some morons would still defend their decision.

      Purposely breaking products is vandalism. And just because there are not that many affected, doesn't change a thing. HP is not better than somebody trashing public phones, smashing windows or keying cars.

    4. Re:Time To Expiration by RoLi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My neighbour doesn't use the house he built there, he just comes by every other week to look after the garden.

      Does this give HP the right to burn down his house "because of the fact that its owner is just not using it"?

      Timesprout, you are sick. Seriously, you should think about what you are advocating, here.

      And I didn't even start to talk about people buying several printer cartridges which of course will be on the shelf quite a while.

    5. Re:Time To Expiration by hal200 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that 3 years later, you may not be able to FIND a cartridge for your printer anymore. If they've EOL'd the printer and don't make that particular cartidge anymore, you're SOL. (HP is pretty good about re-using cartridge designs, but there are others...Epson, I'm looking at YOU!) There is a company in Toronto (sorry, I don't recall the name) whose whole purpose in life is stocking obsolete toner/ink catridges and selling them to ppl/businesses who don't want to upgrade simply because their printer is considered obsolete. Imagine what this will do to them?

      On the subject of printers, I'd never buy another Epson. Picked up a Stylus C42UX for my girlfriend and I to do assignments in university. At $70 (Canadian) for the printer, it was an awesome deal for us as students. (read: poor) Unfortunately, the cartridges cost $25-30 for the black and about $40 for the colour. The black cartridge prints about 100-150 sheets of text. The kicker is that if the printer monitors the ink levels, and if it's out of any given colour (C, M, Y or K) it refuses to print. So, if I'm out of yellow ink and I want to print a black and white document, I'm SOL until I go out and pick up a new colour cartridge for almost 60% of the purchase price of the printer.

      As the final nail in the coffin, just to make sure you don't go and do something sneaky like buy a new printer every time you're out of ink, they put half-filled "preview" ink cartridges in their new printers, so after 50 pages or so, you're sunk again. Every time I think about it too much I get the near uncontrollable urge to take the damned thing out back, and go Office Space on it with a baseball bat, then mail the pieces back to Epson. I doubt it would do any good, but it would make me feel better about the whole deal. :)

      It's sad too, because back in the day, Epson and HP both used to be reputable printer dealers who cared about their products and their customers. (But that's another rant that I'll save that rant for a journal entry sometime...one post, one rant maximum. ;)

      --

      I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?

    6. Re:Time To Expiration by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speaking of bullshit analogies...

      HP's cartridges still have ink in them. The ink worked satisfactorily yesterday, but today I can't use it because HP has decided that it's "expired". There is no physical reason that the cartridge shouldn't be working just fine: The ink is still there, and while it's not the "freshest", it still makes the marks on the page well enough.

      Designing a product to wear out in a specified amount of time is done all the time, although I think it's reprehensible. However, ENFORCING that planned obsolesence by an artificial date-stamp is appalling.

      I mean, should Sony get to come break my stereo because they decided it only is supposed to work for five years?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  4. whats the big deal by kaltekar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so you get 4 and a half years to use the cartidge after you buy the thing. if the ink hasn't dryed up by the time you get around to using it, the quality is going to be shit. expecally with those ultra high end ink jets from hp where you continually expect outstanding quality.

    --
    Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
    1. Re:whats the big deal by hendridm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > if the ink hasn't dryed up by the time you get around to using it, the quality is going to be shit.

      What, do you work for HP? So HP is looking after my best interest to make sure my documents always look their best. How nice of them. Perhaps they should cut the expiration date in half just in case...

      Pffft. I'LL be the judge of when my cartridge is due to be replaced. If your goal is to truely make sure your customer's prints are quality, how about innovation instead of limitation. Try to figure out a way to make the carts last longer. If your printers have the reputation of "lasting forever", I gaurentee your sales will go up.

  5. This Has To Be Stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Thanks to the DMCA, we are powerless to do anything to
    prevent this. A vendor can't sell after-market printer
    ink cartridges for some products as they would be in
    violation of the DMCA -- hence restraint of free trade,
    not the original intent of the DMCA. This only serves
    to keep prices higher and harms consumers, again not
    the intent of the DMCA.


    Can you purchase after-market products, new seats,
    new engines, new spark plugs, new oil and gas for
    your car? Imagine if GM did the following:

    • Built a car with major components on the car area
      network, all using encryption (seats, radio, engine)
    • Had a computer that would not allow
      the car to start unless you had all the original parts
    • Enforced the DMCA so you could only buy replacement
      parts from them
    • Sued all the after marketers for engine parts (no souped
      up engines, no customized or replacement seats,
      no super stereo).


    What's to prevent them from doing that?

  6. Re:It's a free market. by rf0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem is that once a company like HP sets a presidence like this others will think they can follow. These leave the cheaper refill type cartridges or 3rd party both of which invalidate your warranty. However TBH after 2 years you warranty will most likely of expiered anyway

    Rus

  7. Re:It's a free market. by chamenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the problem is that if having printer ink cartridges that self-destruct after a certain amount of time becomes the status quo, then pretty much -all- printer manufacturers are going to follow suit and consumers won't be left with any more choices.

    in an ideal world, consumers would vote with their wallet and such manufacturers would have to change their practices. however in reality, the large majority of consumers are not well-informed, hence they make wrong choices that ultimately put everyone at a disadvantage. to be brutally honest i think this would be rather inevitable, given the general knowledge the average joe or jane has about computers and its related peripheral devices. the manufacturers probably know this, and are likely to prefer to keep it the way it is.

  8. Cannon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bought a Cannon inkjet recently precisely because they don't screw me for refills. There are no chips, prices for official cartridges are reasonable, and there is a large selection of 3rd party inks. Better yet there is one refill per colour so if I run out of cyan, I don't have to throw out my magenta, yellow or black.

    Of course, the printers are a bit more, but if you're doing a lot of printing, they're cheaper in the long run.

  9. It's not a free market by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not a free market, thanks to the DMCA. Without the DMCA, we'd have the freedom to hack and bypass these limits.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  10. Re:The Gillette Business Model. by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I always thought the "Razor model" analogy was a bad one. Why? The real engineering and difficulty in the production of razors is in the blade. The handle? Just some cheap plastic and rubber really. With most other things, that this analogy comes in, the more expensive part of it is the originial product, not the refills.

    Slight nit-pick I guess, but it has always bothered me.

  11. Re:It's a free market. by chamenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    true, but they apparently think they're invulnerable. besides, the EU still won't have any judicial power over the manufacturers' operations in other regions of the world.

    in my opinion, this whole fiasco started due to bad foresight by a bunch of marketing guys. they tried to emulate the shaver business model, but failed to realize that brand recognition is not as important in the computer industry; people in general would be more willing to pay less for an X-brand printer cartrige that works almost as well as the original, but wouldn't be as willing to buy a Y-brand replacement razor for a shaver that might nick your skin when you shave due to poorer QC that manifests itself in more obvious and painful ways.

    now that they've set the standard for ridiculously low prices for printers, they realize their share of the profits of the ink cartridge business isn't as large as they anticipated it to be due to third-party manufacturers. unfortunately, they can't raise the prices of printers to the level they were once at to make up for this loss, since consumers would certainly cry foul and instead rely on older printers that are not fussy about ink cartridges. they've got themselves stuck in a rut, and they have only themselves to blame for it.

    now they've even implemented self-destructing ink cartridges....sheesh. i don't forsee this going very far.

  12. Re:It's a free market. by lpontiac · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They will only follow if morons continue to buy their products.

    And herein lies the problem. The "free market" is an economic model that makes many assumptions. In a "free market" the theoretical consumers make rational decisions all the time, and are perfectly informed.

    The fact that morons exist and are consumers is one of the uncountably large number of reasons that a pure free market will never exist in the real world, and therefore we can't magically expect the market's "invisible hand" to make things work well.

  13. Re:Thanks Co^&aq by Goody · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cheers for taking the company that used to create those really good laser printers and turning them into another crap marketing company, just like you did to Digital.

    Compaq didn't turn HP into a crap company, it was merely the final step in a multi-year process. Things went to hell the day HP made printers a priority over the good quality innovative test equipment they built the 50 years before.

    HP, do you want to spend the rest of your life selling colored ink ?

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
  14. 'Razor Blades, Not Razors' Model by codefool · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As the (former) SW OEM account liason (for a computer company that is now HP) to (a printer company that used to be IBM), I learned quite a bit on this subject.

    First, printers and particularly inkjet printers, follow the Gillette 'sell razor blades, not razors' marketing model. They practicaly give you the printer as an ink burner. So they do all kinds of nifty stuff to make sure you have things to burn ink on, and you keep running down to CompUSA to plop down another $50 on an ink cartridge. The printer also comes with lots of nifty printing software to give you reasons to burn ink.

    In our printers, the cartridge was intelligent, and would keep count (yes, the cartridge did) of the number of individual dots of ink for each color of ink emitted. Knowing the average dot capacity of the cartridge (for each color), we could predict when the cartridge was running low and (kindly) tell the user to go buy another cartridge, and would even provide a handy hyperlink to our online store. Better, we would track the printer's average dots/page and page/day statistics to tell them they had x days of printing left. Buy now!

    So this comes to me as no surprise that they have put an expiration date on the printer cartridge. They will due it under the guise that its ensuring 'fresh ink supply' and to ensure 'highest quality printing'. But, in reality, its only another means to force the customer into buying yet more ink. Cha-ching!

    My advice, shitcan the inkjet printer, go buy a good laser printer. The total cost-of-ownership is much less in the long run.

    p.s. - giving the inkjet away is evil and rude and only perpetuates the problem.

    --
    "Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
  15. Re:What, exactly, is the problem? by scottme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The market chose the second option some years back

    I don't agree. Sure, people were suckered into buying "cheap" inkjet printers but don't try to tell me they did this in the full realization they would get ripped off on the ink.

    Refusing to use a cartridge that is not exhausted is unforgivable. I'd have no objection to the printer (driver) complaining that the cart is old and advising me that the print quality may be less than optimal - in fact that would be a welcome feature. But to refuse to work? GMAB.

    I will not be buying an HP printer.