• fakeman_pretendname
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with fining incredibly rich corporations, is they either laugh it off, or just pass that “cost” onto the consumers.

      I suppose the options are things like:

      a) International regulation against “disabling parts of a product without good reason”. Products simply cannot be sold legally

      b) Enforced warning signs on packets (like cigarette packaging) - each HP printer box or online advert must display a warning sign covering 60% of all images stating “We are a predatory company and will disable your products for no good reason”.

      If those don’t work, then death penalty for top 3 highest ranking of the company and top 3 highest paid of the company, per violation, per year.

  • WilliamTheWicked@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    This and almost every other tech subscription style “service” are one of the most maddening things to come out of the tech sector. The need for profit is absolutely out of control.

    • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m so tired of everything becoming an ongoing subscription. In the end the most powerful vote we all have is our wallets.

      It’s a pretty easy thing to just immediately stop buying from companies that pull this shit.

    • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way that these companies use intellectual property law to secure for themselves a property right to something that someone else purchased from them ought to be highly illegal.

      I believe there was a supreme Court case I better garage door opener, and the company that made the garage doors was trying to sue because they didn’t want anyone using anything but their garage door opener. I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure that the supreme Court in that case explicitly stated that the purpose of the dmca is not to provide companies with a property right to something that people have already purchased.

      Technology companies just went ahead and did it anyway.

    • Sarazil@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      They sell the printers at a loss because they then sell the ink cartridges with so little ink in them that some of the padding is still dry.

  • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sheesh, fuck HP.

    Got a brand new printer from them a few years back. I think it has printed maybe 3 things. Nope. doesn’t print anymore. Doesn’t scan anymore.

    Useless space for a landfill.

    Don’t ever buy HP printers…

  • oohgodyeah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I switched to Brother years ago for both my personal and small business client recommendations and have never looked back.