Doesn’t surprise me one bit. Buy Brother printers.
But it’s a worrisome trend that is now spreading to so many areas. We need to opt out and start using alternatives. Even if it means using an inferior product.
Brother used to be my go to as well but they have apparently started putting DRM checks in their toner/ink cartridges as well. I'm not aware of any brands now that aren't doing this.
The DRM in my Brother printer (HL-L2350DW) is quite limited: it write non genuine toner somewhere in the print dialog properties and that's it. Nothing is disabled and the print quality is not degraded.
But I am not sure if forensic requirements is the reason why people didn't want to make printers. I suspect the demand for printing at home has declined to the point where making a good printer is no longer economically worthwhile.
You are forgetting that merely the fact that your product is open source doesn't mean you won't go bankrupt because you are going to compete with HP, Brother, Samsung, Lexmark, etc. 99.9% of people don't care that your gizmo is open source, they want to print - and ideally cheaper and better than elsewhere. If the only thing in your favor is open source then you will fail in the market. Also any low quantity, boutique production is by definition going to be more expensive that mass produced models.
And don't get me started on the patent minefield that covers many aspects of printer technology. You will have to license those - or be sued into oblivion.
Good luck!
People calling for "someone" to make open source this or that are usually completely ignoring elementary economics of the endeavor. It really has zero to do with any sort of government tracking dots conspiracy (not all printers do that) or that there is supposedly no demand to print at home (if that was true then HP etc. would have been bankrupt already and not making more crappy consumer printers).
Oh and that completely ignores the elephant in the room - do you think that the fact the printer firmware is by some hypothetical magic open source now will prevent the OEM from DRMing the toner/inks? The DRM is not meant to prevent dedicated individuals to bypass it - only to keep 99% of people who barely know how to put new consumables in from using competitor's supplies. Those are certainly not going to flash firmware without the DRM into their printers en masse.
Most people don't unlock/jailbreak their phones either - they want to use them as phones, not to hack this or that. They don't have the technical skills required either - and won't pay others to do it in any significant quantity. Heck, if you want to hack your DRMed printer you could do that even today already, there are hacks and DRM bypasses for many of those DRMed printers online ...
An open source printer is a mirage and a complete red herring.
Latest MacOS versions for some reason have pretty bad Brother printer support - I have to print on my (admittedly pretty old) printer using a special app instead of just sending it to the printer as it used to work. Maybe newer ones don't have this problem?
Oh, they have. And they know exactly what level of dickishness optimises revenue from the rubes, sorry, valued customers, without going too far - the “self-limiting-limit”, if you will.
HP’s reputation for consumer-grade peripherals is already low enough as it is, HP is not afraid of losing “informed-enthusiast” customers - they’ve already done that.
We are not HP’s desired customer base; they don’t want our patronage.
I worked at HP from 2014 to 2021, though not for the Instant Ink team.
The TL;DR is that I think Instant Ink is an absolutely fine program that's ruined by morons that either can't read or think they're devious and think they're going to be able to swindle HP out of ink for pennies.
The first thing you absolutely must know is that Instant Ink is an optional program. You still have the ability to buy and use normal ink cartridges. IMO, that alone should shrug most criticism of the Instant Ink program. You think it's a scam? Fine. Don't subscribe to it. Done.
Second, Instant Ink is not a subscription to ink cartridges, it's a subscription to printed pages. The ink is merely provided as a vehicle to provide the printed pages that you're paying for. That's why the Instant Ink subscription tiers are based on printed pages, and not based on ink used.
This means that if you subscribe to Instant Ink, get your cartridges, then cancel the plan, of course you don't get to keep printing with the cartridges! You didn't pay for the ink!
This is not scumbag behavior. You didn't pay for the ink. You paid for printed pages. You canceled your subscription, your quota ran out, so why would you think you get to keep printing with those cartridges?
But...people think they're geniuses! They rub their hands together while thinking "Heheh, I'll buy a month of Instant Ink, get my cartridges, then cancel, and I'll have received ink for only $3!" then go into an absolute rage against HP when they go through their quota and their printer won't print anymore. It's completely stupid.
If you print frequently and will actually use most of your quota, Instant Ink is a great program that actually does save you money on ink! But people misunderstand (likely deliberately) how it works, and think it's a scam and that HP is a shitty company for it.
It's still HP's fault. It's their business model and people will be people, including the too clever for their own good, irrational skinflints that are prone to raging on line.
Behavior is frequently hard to anticipate, but this isn't one of those cases. If your scheme involves everyone comprehending subscription terms you've failed: people don't do that, for better or worse.
Imagine you buy a can of turtle wax that locks after 20 opens. "We don't sell wax! We sell car waxes!" A water hose that sells sips of water.
You're buying ink. Just because HP wants to market it as something different doesn't make their bullshit true. Unless they're shipping you a printed page, they're selling you ink and then charging you per use, their bottom line doesn't list pages printed, it lists profit per cartridge. People just don't like buying an object and paying for it like it's a service, because it's an obvious scam. Ink is a product.
I have a Brother printer, it was like $90 and it works well. It's a B&W laser only but it does its job well and I can't complain. I replaced a Brother MFC inkjet only because the feeder was dying and the drivers weren't being updated anymore.
Printing as service doesn't make any sense unless someone was printing and mailing the output to me. That would actually be worthwhile for a lot of people.
> Printing as service doesn't make any sense unless someone was printing and mailing the output to me. That would actually be worthwhile for a lot of people.
This is called a print shop, and has existed for basically as long as printers have. You might not like the prices they charge for a single print + mailing, though.
HP’s 20 pages for $7/month is MORE expensive than the FedEx shop ½ mile from my house charges and far more than the public library. It gets better if you go up to their pricier plans and actually need to print hundreds of color photographs per month but can’t wait for mail delivery, but this just seems like a very niche market with such high prices.
On Windows, I cannot even scan a document without first logging in to their "HP Smart" App with an HP account. And it takes Camera Access Permissions for some reason. And it installs a background task that wakes up my PC every night for some kind of diagnostic scan.
It is sad that HP has come down to this. Years ago they were a company an EE had a ton of respect for because of their excellent test equipment. That's spun out to Agilent and now HP is down just mining printer ink like gold.
I think they still make good calculators though??? (/me hugs my 15C).
They spun out their whole calculator division to a company called Royal. I think Royal is just manufacturing HP designs so hopefully quality held up, but I'm not sure.
In an office it makes sense as they maintain the printers for you and keep them working. No surprise when an expensive printer breaks and has to be replaced.
It can make sense for a company where you know the printers will be used regularly and heavily and thus will also be subject to a lot of wear and tear, plus the pricing the big players offer can be pretty decent.
As much as people extoll the virtues of Brother printers, they should know that there are people that do more than print B/W documents.
Brother is far behind the competition from Epson and Canon when it comes to prosumer color inkjet/inktank printing, as I discovered to my cost. I'm referring to SMB printers in the $400-$1000 range, not the $80 consumer injkets that crap out after 50 pages.
Brother colour printers top out at 4 inks (CMYK), which will make most images look washed out, greens resembling blue, etc.
Yes they are economical with the ink use, but the difference between a Brother and an Epson/Canon (which support 6 inks) for colour is night and day. You'll get way better quality color printing at Staples printing from a rental workstation .
That isn't to say I support this ridiculous model of subscriptions. It's just to say that "Buy Brother" isn't the answer for everybody.
Between Walgreens and Fedex the have made it crazy convenient to upload my images to get them printed in high quality format in any size I want for a fairly cheap price. If you don't have one nearby the library offers decent priced alternative. A b/w printer is all I need and will definitely be avoiding subscriptions however possible
Can anyone comment on what is the best quality color printing option at a moderate cost, and how much volume does it take to make it more economical than using a print shop?
> Brother is far behind the competition when it comes to color inkjet/inktank printing
Because inkjet printing for consumers generally sucks. It's just an awful technology for consumers who may go days/weeks/months between needing to print something. I tell any non-tech friends that I can to avoid inkjet printers like the plague - they always have a tendency to break down and be non functional at the moment you need them the most.
I don’t think that analogy works because my circular saw will sit on the shelf unused for years and still work perfectly when I need it. Ink dries out on a much faster scale.
FWIW I recently got a color Laser brother printer (MFC-L3740CDW) that's been working well. My needs aren't for super high resolution or anything but it does the basics well enough, and doesn't appear to have any subscription nonsense attached to it.
When I need to print in color, which is rare - I just go to my library. They offer free printing credits, and if I need to go over, I'm happy to support them.
For folks who want to do "prosumer" level color print, I recently bought an Epson EcoTank Photo ET-8550 and am very happy with the prints. In addition to high-quality CMYK inks, it adds "Photo Black" and "Photo Grey".
The Epson replaced a Brother color laser printer that served me well 5+ years, but of course color laser prints don't approach the quality of color inkjet prints.
Yeah, if you are someone who needs inkjet, epson ecotank is 100% the best option on the market.
also, the "just a tank of ink" model makes it super easy to try out different kinds of ink - you mentioned "photo grey" and "photo black" but there are actually specialty inks for B+W prints that you can experiment with etc.
Most people looking to print at home need it for things like printing assignments, plane/concert tickets, and other general documents, and that’s who those recommendations are for. Color laser printers are designed for these kinds of documents, not photo printing.
If you have a need for something specific, you’d need to investigate the right product. At this point in time, printing pictures at home is a special requirement, as most people either don’t print them at all, or they use the convenience store down the street where it’s much cheaper than maintaining the equipment at home.
I don’t know where you’re coming from. I bought a color inkjet Brother printer years ago and I’m extremely satisfied. After using Epson and HP for years, it… just works. Every time I click "print", it prints.
"Buy Brother" is still my answer. If you need high quality prints, don’t buy a consumer grade printer.
There are so many other good printer alternatives. Brother has been brought elsewhere, but I recently bought a Canon laser printer which has been fantastic. Great color reproduction, fast, easy. And, you know, I just own it so I can do whatever I want.
I've bought both Canon and Brother, both were pretty nice
(laser of course.. with even color laser printers being $200, there is no reason to keep inkjet at home)
Ah... The pinnacle of enshitification. Dear HP, I would like to also suggest to charge on per scanned page basis and if possible also not only print on HP ink but on HP paper only. If you could also for free monitor all my printer activity, that will be much appreciated!
This is the time on HN when people list alternatives.
I found a slightly older popular make&model of printer that does what I want, can be airgapped/datadioded, and I'd guess will have plentiful third-party supplies for many years. (Barring trade issues that would mean we have much bigger problems than printing.)
And I'm not going to tell you HN bastids which make&model that is. While I decide whether I can stockpile a few new-old-stock backup units.
I keep looking and asking this all over the place, haven't found one yet. I don't see why not, it's basically a 3d printer with two axes instead of 3 and toner ribbon cartridges are ubiquitous, much much cheaper than filament. I don't understand why nobody has done this, I might go ahead and do it one day down the road if it doesn't happen before I get around to it.
>These techdirt articles with 15 links mixed in and unclear sources are ....dirt.
What 15 links and what unclear sources?
There's 4 links in the article, 2 of which are direct links to HP pages that pertain to what is in the paragraph, 1 is direct link to a video that is referenced, and 1 is past coverage about a lawsuit. All are acting as sources and all are pretty clear to me?
more of a general comment, not as many in this one true, but having to sift thru each one, over references to other articles, related video, etc to figure out which is the source one they're actually writing about is annoying.
Anyways this isn't even news, already talked about almost a week ago
Having done the ink jet song and dance for a while with multiple printers over the years I bought a color laser jet Brother HL-3170CDW printer 10 years ago for $170.
Wireless and it just works. Economical as well with the cartridges.
The refusal by these companies to accept the realities of the modern printer market reminds me of the tagline that Michael Scott wrote for Dunder Mifflin:
109 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 269 ms ] threadBut it’s a worrisome trend that is now spreading to so many areas. We need to opt out and start using alternatives. Even if it means using an inferior product.
If you have a firmware newer than that, it may be possible to find an older pre-locking release and downgrade:
* https://old.reddit.com/r/printers/comments/w9bc3g/downdgradi...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860131
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24786721 - Ask HN: Why are there no open source 2d printers? (2020)
There was some mentioning of forensic tracking requirements for printers in the comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14501894 - List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots (2017)
But I am not sure if forensic requirements is the reason why people didn't want to make printers. I suspect the demand for printing at home has declined to the point where making a good printer is no longer economically worthwhile.
And don't get me started on the patent minefield that covers many aspects of printer technology. You will have to license those - or be sued into oblivion.
Good luck!
People calling for "someone" to make open source this or that are usually completely ignoring elementary economics of the endeavor. It really has zero to do with any sort of government tracking dots conspiracy (not all printers do that) or that there is supposedly no demand to print at home (if that was true then HP etc. would have been bankrupt already and not making more crappy consumer printers).
Oh and that completely ignores the elephant in the room - do you think that the fact the printer firmware is by some hypothetical magic open source now will prevent the OEM from DRMing the toner/inks? The DRM is not meant to prevent dedicated individuals to bypass it - only to keep 99% of people who barely know how to put new consumables in from using competitor's supplies. Those are certainly not going to flash firmware without the DRM into their printers en masse.
Most people don't unlock/jailbreak their phones either - they want to use them as phones, not to hack this or that. They don't have the technical skills required either - and won't pay others to do it in any significant quantity. Heck, if you want to hack your DRMed printer you could do that even today already, there are hacks and DRM bypasses for many of those DRMed printers online ...
An open source printer is a mirage and a complete red herring.
Brother is going down the same path, sadly. They started pushing their EZ-Print subscription in a software update a few months ago.
HP’s reputation for consumer-grade peripherals is already low enough as it is, HP is not afraid of losing “informed-enthusiast” customers - they’ve already done that.
We are not HP’s desired customer base; they don’t want our patronage.
But we are the crowd that normal people tend to ask for recommendations when they're deciding on equipment purchases.
The TL;DR is that I think Instant Ink is an absolutely fine program that's ruined by morons that either can't read or think they're devious and think they're going to be able to swindle HP out of ink for pennies.
The first thing you absolutely must know is that Instant Ink is an optional program. You still have the ability to buy and use normal ink cartridges. IMO, that alone should shrug most criticism of the Instant Ink program. You think it's a scam? Fine. Don't subscribe to it. Done.
Second, Instant Ink is not a subscription to ink cartridges, it's a subscription to printed pages. The ink is merely provided as a vehicle to provide the printed pages that you're paying for. That's why the Instant Ink subscription tiers are based on printed pages, and not based on ink used.
This means that if you subscribe to Instant Ink, get your cartridges, then cancel the plan, of course you don't get to keep printing with the cartridges! You didn't pay for the ink!
This is not scumbag behavior. You didn't pay for the ink. You paid for printed pages. You canceled your subscription, your quota ran out, so why would you think you get to keep printing with those cartridges?
But...people think they're geniuses! They rub their hands together while thinking "Heheh, I'll buy a month of Instant Ink, get my cartridges, then cancel, and I'll have received ink for only $3!" then go into an absolute rage against HP when they go through their quota and their printer won't print anymore. It's completely stupid.
If you print frequently and will actually use most of your quota, Instant Ink is a great program that actually does save you money on ink! But people misunderstand (likely deliberately) how it works, and think it's a scam and that HP is a shitty company for it.
Behavior is frequently hard to anticipate, but this isn't one of those cases. If your scheme involves everyone comprehending subscription terms you've failed: people don't do that, for better or worse.
So HP customers are either crooks or morons? My spidey-sense is tingling here from the level of disdain this expresses.
Perhaps, if a "fine program" can be ruined because people don't understand it, the problem is with the program and not the people.
Imagine you buy a can of turtle wax that locks after 20 opens. "We don't sell wax! We sell car waxes!" A water hose that sells sips of water.
You're buying ink. Just because HP wants to market it as something different doesn't make their bullshit true. Unless they're shipping you a printed page, they're selling you ink and then charging you per use, their bottom line doesn't list pages printed, it lists profit per cartridge. People just don't like buying an object and paying for it like it's a service, because it's an obvious scam. Ink is a product.
Vote with your wallet.
Printing as service doesn't make any sense unless someone was printing and mailing the output to me. That would actually be worthwhile for a lot of people.
This is called a print shop, and has existed for basically as long as printers have. You might not like the prices they charge for a single print + mailing, though.
But doesn't make sense when you've personally purchased the machine to do the printing. At this point you should be your own print shop.
On Windows, I cannot even scan a document without first logging in to their "HP Smart" App with an HP account. And it takes Camera Access Permissions for some reason. And it installs a background task that wakes up my PC every night for some kind of diagnostic scan.
I think they still make good calculators though??? (/me hugs my 15C).
Sadly, they don't make the 15C any more.
Below is where to find a near next exact simulation for your desktop and phone.
https://jrpn.jovial.com/
Unless you are doing an enormous amount of printing, I can't imagine this making a lot of sense at home. I print maybe three times a year.
Edit: So apparently some group of people wants this, or has been hoodwinked into it.
Brother is far behind the competition from Epson and Canon when it comes to prosumer color inkjet/inktank printing, as I discovered to my cost. I'm referring to SMB printers in the $400-$1000 range, not the $80 consumer injkets that crap out after 50 pages.
Brother colour printers top out at 4 inks (CMYK), which will make most images look washed out, greens resembling blue, etc.
Yes they are economical with the ink use, but the difference between a Brother and an Epson/Canon (which support 6 inks) for colour is night and day. You'll get way better quality color printing at Staples printing from a rental workstation .
That isn't to say I support this ridiculous model of subscriptions. It's just to say that "Buy Brother" isn't the answer for everybody.
Extrapolate from there and think of how often you'd send pictures to a print shop.
Even cheap inkjet printers aren't worth the cost for photos.
Because inkjet printing for consumers generally sucks. It's just an awful technology for consumers who may go days/weeks/months between needing to print something. I tell any non-tech friends that I can to avoid inkjet printers like the plague - they always have a tendency to break down and be non functional at the moment you need them the most.
The people who actually need an inkjet printer are people who do a lot of crafts or projects who need quick turnaround.
I personally have a middle option of a color laser printer and while tbh the prints look like shite, they are good enough for my projects.
So fucking wasteful.
If you have to print anything that might come into contact with even very small drops of water, inkjet will be a disaster for you.
Laser prints are heat fixed and not water soluble...
If you need color but don't usually need photo quality, buy a color laser.
These are the kind of projects that I’m talking about. If you know you need an inkjet printer, you know.
My friends can attest to a photo center not letting you do any of this on their printers.
The Epson replaced a Brother color laser printer that served me well 5+ years, but of course color laser prints don't approach the quality of color inkjet prints.
also, the "just a tank of ink" model makes it super easy to try out different kinds of ink - you mentioned "photo grey" and "photo black" but there are actually specialty inks for B+W prints that you can experiment with etc.
If you have a need for something specific, you’d need to investigate the right product. At this point in time, printing pictures at home is a special requirement, as most people either don’t print them at all, or they use the convenience store down the street where it’s much cheaper than maintaining the equipment at home.
"Buy Brother" is still my answer. If you need high quality prints, don’t buy a consumer grade printer.
+1 Brother.
I've bought both Canon and Brother, both were pretty nice (laser of course.. with even color laser printers being $200, there is no reason to keep inkjet at home)
What was _not_ great was the crappy wireless chipset on the printer. I guess it did not support multiple APs well. I cancelled my subscription.
I need to print color, so I have a Canon now. Works very well.
I found a slightly older popular make&model of printer that does what I want, can be airgapped/datadioded, and I'd guess will have plentiful third-party supplies for many years. (Barring trade issues that would mean we have much bigger problems than printing.)
And I'm not going to tell you HN bastids which make&model that is. While I decide whether I can stockpile a few new-old-stock backup units.
Lots of discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39556325
What 15 links and what unclear sources?
There's 4 links in the article, 2 of which are direct links to HP pages that pertain to what is in the paragraph, 1 is direct link to a video that is referenced, and 1 is past coverage about a lawsuit. All are acting as sources and all are pretty clear to me?
Anyways this isn't even news, already talked about almost a week ago
For photo quality I just use the local pharmacy.
I don’t understand how HP sells anything competing with them.
Limitless paper in a paperless world