Slashdot Mirror
Printer Makers Are Crippling Cheap Ink Cartridges Via Bogus 'Security Updates' (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Printer maker Epson is under fire this month from activist groups after a software update prevented customers from using cheaper, third party ink cartridges. It's just the latest salvo in a decades-long effort by printer manufacturers to block consumer choice, often by disguising printer downgrades as essential product improvements. For several decades now printer manufacturers have lured consumers into an arguably-terrible deal: shell out a modest sum for a mediocre printer, then pay an arm and a leg for replacement printer cartridges that cost relatively-little to actually produce.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation now says that Epson has been engaged in the same behavior. The group says it recently learned that in late 2016 or early 2017, Epson issued a "poison pill" software update that effectively downgraded user printers to block third party cartridges, but disguised the software update as a meaningful improvement. The EFF has subsequently sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing that Epson's lack of transparency can easily be seen as "misleading and deceptive" under Texas consumer protection laws. "When restricted to Epson's own cartridges, customers must pay Epson's higher prices, while losing the added convenience of third party alternatives, such as refillable cartridges and continuous ink supply systems," the complaint notes. "This artificial restriction of third party ink options also suppresses a competitive ink market and has reportedly caused some manufacturers of refillable cartridges and continuous ink supply systems to exit the market."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation now says that Epson has been engaged in the same behavior. The group says it recently learned that in late 2016 or early 2017, Epson issued a "poison pill" software update that effectively downgraded user printers to block third party cartridges, but disguised the software update as a meaningful improvement. The EFF has subsequently sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing that Epson's lack of transparency can easily be seen as "misleading and deceptive" under Texas consumer protection laws. "When restricted to Epson's own cartridges, customers must pay Epson's higher prices, while losing the added convenience of third party alternatives, such as refillable cartridges and continuous ink supply systems," the complaint notes. "This artificial restriction of third party ink options also suppresses a competitive ink market and has reportedly caused some manufacturers of refillable cartridges and continuous ink supply systems to exit the market."
Every once in a while we have an electronics recycling in our area, and they took a count of how many printers they got that were still functional, and it turned out to be about 65%; about 85% of those they could “resale” (meaning they had power cord, etc enough to make them usable, sans new ink). They tried to give them to the local thrift shops, but they usually refuse them because they already have too many of them to try to sell. So they end up in landfills.
So now the local towns are thinking of putting restrictions on the sale of those types of printers.
AC comments get piped to
And I mean real capitalism, not the fake stuff the nationalists talk about.
If you buy something, you have the right to modify it, repair it, and use it with other people's products. That is what OWNING it means. If you want to rent stuff instead of sell, that's fine, but you don't have the right to rent it while pretending you are selling it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Exactly. I use the color laser at work for things that need a splash of color. My home printer is black and white,, and it serves me just fine. The only time I needed to print photos, I used a photo printing service.
And the likes of Costco and such don't use crappy inkjet printers. No, they use real photo printers on real photo paper. Basically the same kind of machine that used to generate prints from 35mm film has been adapted for the digital world (they have a very high resolution CRT screen that images the photo paper).
For photos, they are simply stunning and come with your pick of matte or gloss photo paper. And photo paper means it doesn't run at the slightest hint of water.
Inkjet printers are junk. I wouldn't print photos on them - it costs under 50 cents for a 4x6 print from the store. Better than paying $30 for a pack of 10 inkjet printer photo paper and all the special inks.