> If they want to make it fair, then they could define a charge per page and then bill you for actual pages printed at the end of each month.
But that's literally how it works! A certain number of pages are included in the monthly cost, and you're billed for additional pages over the limit.
The problem is that OP cancelled their subscription shortly after receiving a new cartridge. So now the options are:
• Make OP return the cartridge.
• Charge OP for the remainder of their cartridge as a cancellation fee. (Yuck!)
• Prevent OP from using the cartridge.
---
> The fact that ink must be bundled in cartridges that print many pages is HPs problem, not consumers, and they can't work around that with a non-sensical subscription model.
But at the same time: consumers are choosing to buy this subscription. HP provides an option to buy cartridges outright, without limits, and consumers are choosing the subscription instead.
I don't know why consumers are doing that. I would never do it, and I would strongly advise others against it. But many people appear to appreciate the service.
Now, maybe those people are being tricked into the subscription via dark patterns, which would be a problem, but a different one.
IMO, the Problem is that HP markets this as an ink subscription, when it is really a printed page subscription. It's hard to blame someone for thinking that an "ink subscription" would prevent them from fully utilizing ink paid for during the subscription.
This seems like HP is trying to capitalize on all kinds of other product subscription models popular today (eg: Aamazon Subscribe and Save, pet food deliveries, water delivery, etc.), but purposefully making the marketing as misleading as possible.
Don't call it "instant ink", call it a Print Subscription and you'd probably eliminate most of the problems (and sales...).
It's called "HP Instant Ink" because you don't have to keep track of ink cartridge levels, HP takes care of that for you and bills per page instead.
I honestly thought all the marketing materials I've seen were quite clear about how the service was billed. I don't think changing the name would lead to more or less confusion or sales.
> I honestly thought all the marketing materials I've seen were quite clear about how the service was billed. I don't think changing the name would lead to more or less confusion or sales.
It's very clear how it works.
But sadly, the people that created the program don't spend enough time on the Internet to learn that the way the general public perceives things often does not match reality.
Ever since Instant Ink started, the Internet has been flooded with morons that think they're geniuses by thinking they can buy 1 month of Instant Ink, cancel the sub, and then keep using the cartridges they think they paid $3 for.
If you sub to Instant Ink, you never owned the ink cartridges. At best, you're renting them. Once you decide to stop paying the rent, you don't get to keep using them. I don't know why some people struggle with this.
No, I'm talking about the marketing. But is the fact that it's not an ink subscription service made really clear? Because it's absolutely not in their marketing materials. They do everything possible to make it sound like an ink subscription service.
I could easily see myself looking at selecting a plan based on number of pages and thinking that they're just using that to measure the amount of ink. "Plan x: 10 pages/month" meaning that you get the amount of ink you need per month to print 10 average pages, not that once you get the ink you need to keep paying for it.
I don’t think so? It feels fair to me that I should pay for something that I’m going to keep using, and unfair (and wasteful) that a company would brick a perfectly good ink cardridge.
Look at the reaction to Adobe's behavior when people terminate their yearly subscription early and are still required to pay for the entire contract. They're not selling Photoshop by month, it's installments on a yearly contract.
Depends on the actual cost of that first ink cartridge. If it's $3 or less, then by all means let them have it. If it is over, then adjust your subscription's start cost to fit.
... or just let them keeps the 50 cents worth of ink and consider it good customer service, let them leave on a positive note so they hopefully choose to come back, rather than burning the bridge? Why do they have to invent some system of enforcement beyond "just don't send any more cartidges"?
While subscribed, cartridges are free and you're billed per page. If you could keep the cartridges, canceling would potentially net you many hundreds of extra pages for free. And you could cancel again and again.
I think the incentive to cancel right after receiving a new cartridge would be extremely high, to the point of rendering the whole service non-viable.
HP would have to limit how frequently customers can cancel, institute a waiting period before resubscribing, or track individual abusers and issue lifetime bans.
The first result for genuine HP ink cartridge on amazon is $23, and has a claimed yield of 170 pages. Meanwhile, the cheapest plan for HP instant ink is $0.99/month. If you could subscribe for the cheapest plan, then instantly cancel, you're basically getting a 96% discount on ink cartridges.
That eliminates the risk of any angry customer with disabled ink.
However, the new problem is that most customers would rather have the current situation pay as you go situation than pay up front.
Id be dammed if I pay full price for a product AND a subscription. If it is a 50% discount (as advertised), the customer is still looking at 3 cartridges before they break even.
Yeah, I understand now. I was 100% not interpreting any of that as meaning what HP means by it.
I was thinking that they were using "pages" as a means of measuring the quantity of ink in a way that people can understand, not as literally meaning "pages".
I thought that way because I really believed HP was offering an ink subscription service, and my interpretation is the only one that makes sense if that's what it was.
But it's not. This feels intentionally ambiguous to me. Perhaps it's not, but I bet my interpretation of what they're saying is not rare.
I remain very pleased to avoid HP inkjets, regardless.
But that's literally how it works! A certain number of pages are included in the monthly cost, and you're billed for additional pages over the limit.
The problem is that OP cancelled their subscription shortly after receiving a new cartridge. So now the options are:
• Make OP return the cartridge.
• Charge OP for the remainder of their cartridge as a cancellation fee. (Yuck!)
• Prevent OP from using the cartridge.
---
> The fact that ink must be bundled in cartridges that print many pages is HPs problem, not consumers, and they can't work around that with a non-sensical subscription model.
But at the same time: consumers are choosing to buy this subscription. HP provides an option to buy cartridges outright, without limits, and consumers are choosing the subscription instead.
I don't know why consumers are doing that. I would never do it, and I would strongly advise others against it. But many people appear to appreciate the service.
Now, maybe those people are being tricked into the subscription via dark patterns, which would be a problem, but a different one.