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.

All these fancy ink and 'laser' printers

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)

Re:All these fancy ink and 'laser' printers

I agree totally. I have an old Okidata 380D that has outlasted 3 of those "fancy" printers. It always works, and does text just fine. Since I don't print pictures, it is all I really need.

I just need to remember to print my work before the babies are asleep.

Re:It's a free market.

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

Re:It's a free market.

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.

Re:It's a free market.

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.

Not so. This is a simplistic, 19th century model which has been improved upon quite a bit in the last century.

Current economic theory does take into account irrational decisions, but on the whole individual irrational economic decisions do little to affect the economics of the entire population. There will always be some people acting irrationally, but on the whole most will make rational decisions most of the time, the end result of which drives the free market.

Note that a 'rational decision' also requires accurate information. If the population is given incorrect information (either deliberately or otherwise) it will act irrationally because the information available tells it that the irrational is actually rational.

The thing to keep in mind here is that there is no capitalistic model at work in any country in the world (with the possible exception of tiny places like Andorra - couldn't tell you about these mini-nations). Even the 'capitalist' economy of the United States is heavily socialized and government-controlled, although the government control often works opposite to that of fascism (i.e., instead of the government giving orders to corporations, it's usually the other way around). We have no idea - none whatsoever - how a capitalistic free market would work because we don't have any capitalistic free markets to examine. A socialistic, oligarchical corporate state does not a free market make.

So it makes no sense to criticize capitalism or the free market. You do not live in a capitalistic country, and you don't have a free market.

Max

Re:It's a free market.

You might consider getting a used HP LaserJet with a JetDirect. I did that and I haven't replaced the cartridge yet, it prints for my whole apartment (and a few friends far away with IP printing), and it makes a lovely coffee table. All for not much money.

Re:It's a free market.

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.

Re:It's a free market.

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.

They're playing with fire if they do that; printer manufacturers are already under investigation for anticompetitive practices by the EU. If they have any sense, they'll back off fast.

Re:It's a free market.

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.

Re:It's a free market.

They're playing with fire if they do that; printer manufacturers are already under investigation for anticompetitive practices by the EU. If they have any sense, they'll back off fast.

But how can a judge indict them if they control the printers the indictments are printed with? ;-)

It's not a free market

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

Re:It's a free *market*.

"Free market" is not a boolean value. The market is less free due to the Digital Millentium Copyright Act. As a result of the Lexmark DMCA decision, the suppliers of toner and inkjet cartridges can be limited to the few companies that make printers and those that they authorize (presumably for fees that eliminate much of the economic advantage for consumers).

Basically, companies that can manufacture ink jet cartridges (relatively small products) but cannot manufacture their own printers can be locked out of the market, eliminating consumers' ability to choose to buy from these smaller companies.

Re:It's a free market.

Try Canon, for one. The S750 I purchased last summer uses the same non-chipped ink tanks as most of their other new-line home and small office printers, so even though I don't see the S750 on their web site any more, I'm pretty sure that they will be making their ink this way for some time to come.

(It's a very good printer, besides, if you were wondering for your own reference... Prints fast (I don't have a ppm count... not nosebleed fast, but notably faster than my roommate's HP), works well with the gimp-print drivers if you use Linux, prints photos well enough for my eyes, and has all sorts of other bells and whistles.)

Offset by the cost of a slightly more pricey printer ($140), the ink is pretty inexpensive. The black cartridge will set you back $15; the full set of three color cartridges costs $30. Canon ink comes in transparent plastic "dumb" cartridges that are completely sucked dry when the driver tells you they're empty... the printer won't cheat you out of any of it, as it actually measures how much ink is left in the tank rather than using HP or Epson style guesswork.

There are a few other non-evil printer manufacturers, I'm sure, but Canon seems to be the best as far as I've heard. Any other suggestions, anyone?

Re:It's a free market.

But is Canon evil in the sense of not revealing information needed to write open source device drivers for their inkjet printers? linuxprinting.org [linuxprinting.org] only grades Canon a C-.

Re:It's a free market.

If you don't like it, buy someone else's product.

This has very little to do with a free market. Even in a "free" market there are still laws... And the last time I checked, fraud was still illegal (at least where I live, the U.S.)

And IMO, this is fraud. If I sell you a consumable product, there is a certain (reasonable, I think) expectation that the product will function until the consumable resource involved is exhausted. If this wasn't a "computer" product, and therefore affected people besides geeks--imagine the outcry!

For instance, replace "ink cartridges" with "case of beer/pop." If you don't drink all the cans in your case before a certain date, they all automatically vent the CO2 and go flat so you have to buy more.

Folks, there would be riots in the streets and the FTC would be all OVER their asses...

Re:It's a free market.

Yeah, but you've gotta keep Joe Sixpack in mind here. Joe Sixpack *does* buy inkjet printers and printer carts. HPs often get a bad rap for quality of output and reliability because Joe Sixpack buys a cartridge and uses the same cartridge for 2 years, because actually most consumers don't print *that* often and HP cartridges tend to last a long time. My aunt's Lexmark (which uses an HP inkjet "engine") started printing all streaky a while ago. I asked her when the last time she replaced her cartridge was. Her response? "Never." She'd had the printer for about 2-3 years.

HPs motives aren't totally evil here... they really *are* trying to inform the consumer that you have to replace your cartridges more often than 2-3 years.

Software patch

I bet some bright soul figures out how to patch a system to bypass this silliness. ...
In other news, a bright soul has just been charged with a DCMA violation by HP.

RTFA, then use a brain cell

Insightful?
1) HP bought Compaq.
2) Last Year.
3) The print cartridge was manufactured 4.5 years ago.

Re:Thanks Co^&aq

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 ?

Let's not forget...

That Lexmark are using DMCA [slashdot.org] against a company that sells chips that allow third-party cartridges to be used...

This just adds to a list of reasons why I will never, ever, own a printer again [instructio...uals.co.uk]...

Isn't this illegal

With cars, it's illegal to do this (Brady law I think). Why is any other hardware different? Car makers tried to get the monopoly on parts, and then got slapped down by laws to keep them from doing this. Can that be used as a precedent to prevent this?

The Brady Law

"With cars, it's illegal to do this (Brady law I think)."

Does the Brady Law on cars mean that there is a 3-day waiting period if you want to buy a Chevy Beretta?

Re:The Brady Law

Its full name is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [mlmlaw.com] and yes, a manufacturer cannot make a "tie-in" requirement that purchasing a part from someone else voids your warranty. You could argue that adding someone else's ink is no different than adding someone else's carbur^H carbo^H transmission, for example.

Re:The Brady Law

The thing is, ECU replacement (not upgrading or chipping, but replacement) is a tried and true method for getting both more power and more efficient operation out of your engine.

Engine control is not exactly rocket science. My ECU has a 3MHz microcontroller and some counters on it, and that's pretty much it. Then there's a fuel map, a little 2d chart that says at so many RPMs and so much airflow, supply this much fuel, and keep adding more until the speed matches the throttle position. Admittedly, there's a bit more to it, like monitoring the O2 sensor and making the mixture richer or leaner or adjusting timing (usually the latter) to ensure that the maximum amount of fuel is burned, leading to higher efficiency and thus lower emissions, but you must realize that to just get a car to run and develop power you don't need to do all that shit. Cars were making hundreds of horsepower through forced induction before the invention of fuel injection, even. Check out some old studebakers if you don't believe me.

Tuners do reverse engineer that stuff, but there's really no need to because you can do it somewhat by the dimensions of the engine and somewhat by trial and error, especially watching the O2 sensor output. It becomes slightly more complex when you add in VTEC and the like because for staged VVT you must have two maps for different cam profiles, and for phased VVT you can adjust the timing much more broadly, but all of that can be reduced to relatively simple formulas, all of which will be adjusted by the sensor inputs.

Anyway even for VTEC (and other VVT, everyone seems to have it these days) you can replace the computer entirely, without doing any reverse engineering whatsoever, and just start from a basic set of assumptions about what an engine of that bore, stroke, and compression ratio will need in the way of fuel and air, and design a map accordingly.

That stinks

I know what I'd do. I'd go down the shop and buy a new one. Then I'd return the old one with the receipt and explain that it's defective - full of ink but not working.

Irony

Since I'm not a subscriber (I know, I'm a llama), I get ads in the stories. The ad for this story is for an HP handheld device.

The tagline?

HP- Invent

Time To Expiration

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.

Re:Time To Expiration

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.

So WHY do it then?

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.

OK, I'll buy that. So why go to the expense of including an expiration chip in it then? Think about this for a second.

This also begs this question - Have they been testing this technology since 1999? Not likely. It is most likely a programmable chip. So maybe in the next batch of cartridges, they can change the expiration date to 6 months, and make it behave like it just ran out of ink. The end user will just think they ran out, and buy another cartridge.

I used to think I was a little paranoid, but then the DMCA gets passed, and greedy f'ing companies try to pull this kind of crap, and I think maybe I wasn't paranoid enough.

Re:Time To Expiration

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

Re:Time To Expiration

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.

Re:Time To Expiration

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?

whats the big deal

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.