Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP Stops Selling Printers, Starts Selling Prints

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the does-this-mean-i-get-a-free-printer dept.

HP 346

An anonymous reader writes "HP has launched a new line of business printers but there's a big catch — you won't be able to buy one. For the first time in history, the company will make customers purchase printing services, rather than the product itself. At its biggest printer launch since the LaserJet in 1984, HP's new business-class Edgeline printers will only be available through a managed services contract. Pricing will be per page, depending on the quality of the printout. Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient that if HP were to sell these printers, they would never match the money they make from consumables (cartridges etc) now."

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Misleading Summary Title (5, Informative)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800403)

So, they're not stopping selling printers, they've just released a new line of contracted/leased service printers. Nice work.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (4, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800433)

Chalk another one up to Zonkism.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (1, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800571)

You must be new here.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800625)

Nice "editing", Zonk. I hope Slashdot is paying you what you're worth.

-ING form of verbs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800627)

You cannot use two -ing words in a row like that :) You have to say "stopping to sell", not "stopping selling". hmmmmmm How old are you? :)

Re:-ING form of verbs! (2, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800767)

Shit. Thanks for making me feel more dumberer.

Re:-ING form of verbs! (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800979)

It's alright, you can chalk it up to first post anxiety.

Re:-ING form of verbs! (1)

Convector (897502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801085)

But you must! Otherwise, you wouldn't have come to Slashdot.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (3, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800677)

True, it would be stupid to stop selling printers anyway. A printer in which I don't get a print in less than a few minutes isn't very useful to me.

Ink for business printers is a lot cheaper than with consumer printers anyway. That's the nature of the business, you want a cheap printer, they want you to pay for the ink. If you want cheap ink, then you pay for a more expensive printer. HP and many other companies treat their consumer products differently from their business products because they are different markets with different expectations.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (4, Informative)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801127)

'True, it would be stupid to stop selling printers anyway. A printer in which I don't get a print in less than a few minutes isn't very useful to me.'

You do still get the print right away. The printer is physically present in your business but you pay a lease and pay for each page you print.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800829)

Or rather that they've released a line of printer where they've stopped hiding the monthly charges in the "ink costs".

la forma de vebro incorrecta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800851)

No debes usar la forma "ando" o "iendo" para dos palabras que hay consecutivas. Debes usar la forma infinitiva (-ar, -er,o -ir). Por ejemplo, no dice "parando vendiendo". Debes decir "parando vender"! Cuantos años tienes, amigo???

HP doing what Xerox has done for years, Woo! (4, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801049)

That's news you can use! Thanks Zonk, and thanks for the oh-so-accurate headline. Come on, the only news here is that HP is so late to the game when almost every other big player has offered both options for years.

Bad Headline (4, Interesting)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800407)

I don't see that HP will stop selling printers. They just won't sell this one. You can still buy other HP printers, though. But the Edgeline does seem like a nice printer, though. $50 says that in 5 years, every office will have one (that they own).

Re:Bad Headline (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800579)

But the Edgeline does seem like a nice printer, though. $50 says that in 5 years, every office will have one (that they own).

I'm not sure why they are now just claiming that they are ink efficient. My HP DeskJet 400C was so ink efficient that I used the same black and white cartridge for 5 years in college until it completely broke down and several hardware rollers came out with the final page of my Senior Thesis.

I replaced it with another HP DeskJet expecting the same kind of service level but found that the printer hardware was cheap, the ink needed to be replaced MUCH MORE often (every two months at my levels), and that it was sometimes less money to buy a new DeskJet each time at Walmart than to replace the ink cartridge.

I don't own a printer any more and only use a printer at work when I absolutely must have something printed out (tax time is about the only thing I can think of in recent memory).

Let's go back to the ink efficient days of the DeskJet 400C and fuck these contract based service packages.

Re:Bad Headline (4, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800697)

Let's go back to the ink efficient days of the DeskJet 400C and fuck these contract based service packages.

What? Are you one of those radical/liberals who place customer value and/or human rights above corporate profits? Infidel! Heathen!

Re:Bad Headline (3, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800771)

That's part of the business model of printers these days. Provide a subsidy on the hardware and make it up in consumables (ink, paper, etc.). Keep in mind, that printer that is cheaper than new ink cartridges only comes with "starter" cartridges which hold less ink than the normal ones. So, it might be cheaper, but you also get less ink (and therefore have to replace more frequently). But, you can probably make up the difference by selling the older printer on eBay or something.

I'd like to see the profit point on printers. How many ink cartridges do I have to buy for them to make up the loss on the hardware? Do companies plan for that payback over time? What is their estimate on how long it takes?

Layne

That's why you don't buy HP (1, Flamebait)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800793)

If you print a lot of color and can afford it, get a color laser printer. It's significantly cheaper to operate than any ink jet.

Regardless of your technology choice, don't purchase an HP.

There are lots of excellent choices out there. I'm not sure why you'd choose HP.

Re:That's why you don't buy HP (2, Insightful)

cultrhetor (961872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801141)

When one makes a strong - almost commanding - declaration such as that, he should at least have the courtesy to support his statement with a fact or two.

Wow... (3, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800415)

... who says they need Carly Fiornia to make stupid decisions...

Re:Wow... (3, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800547)

Actually, this is a business class printer, not a home printer.

Which means it's not such a bad decision - businesses seem to like things like this, where the only responsibility to them is to have static per-page cost of the printer.

Especially law firms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18801107)

This would be perfect for law firms, where I have to enter a client ID every time I print.
The firm now has a free printer, and per page costs are easily billed to the client.

Re:Wow... (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801139)

Woe unto the employee who doesn't check the file size and sends a 200 page doc to the printer. There'll be someone from HR waiting for them when they go to get it.

If selling ink doesn't work, how about the printer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800435)

Then why don't they just sell the printer at astronomical price to differentiate this new line of printers from HP's consumer level printers?

Re:If selling ink doesn't work, how about the prin (2, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800505)

All printers are sold at a loss. Money is made on ink cartridges. This decision just carries it to the logical extreme.

Re:If selling ink doesn't work, how about the prin (3, Insightful)

B'Trey (111263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801011)

Because most people won't bother to search out the cost per page printed over the life of the printer. They'll see one printer for $599 and one for $1599 and buy the cheap one. It's the same principle as the "Bad security products drive out good security products" story that posted a couple hours ago.

Do you still have to buy ink? (0)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800453)

Or is that included in the per page price?

Why not just up the price of the printer or just not lower the price of the carts? (or lower them less than the manufacturing cost is lowered).

Ex: Old cart cost $100, but was $5 to make. New cart is $97 but costs $1 to make.

And this is.... (-1, Offtopic)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800459)

Why capitalism doesnt work.

Communism instills ownership of the state on all tangible assets.
Corporatism instills that ownership is of the corporation via all applicable tools to do so.

Ask yourself this: How much stuff do you OWN (not rent, borrow, lease, or other keywords) ?

Re:And this is.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800535)

what a fucking stupid argument.

people might be able to count on one hand how much stuff they do NOT own, but you seem to suggest it as otherwise.

are you fucking retarded?

Re:And this is.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800541)

Yeah, communism rules comrade. There are tons of North Korean printer companies producing printers better than Edgeline that you can buy, not rent.

Seriously, HP did the R&D to make this thing so they dictate the terms. Don't like the leasing arrangement? Don't lease one.

Re:And this is.... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800617)

actually he said that corporatism will fail for the same reason communism failed, he wasn't promoting communism at all.

And capitalism can fall into corporatism pretty easily if companies get the idea they can loan everything instead of sell it.

His points are valid, even if his argument lacks weigh (for example, I own everything of "mine" but the structure I live in - even that will change, minus mortgage, in a month or too)

Re:And this is.... (2, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800631)

Why free enterprise DOES work:

Another company will come out with a similarly efficient printer that they WILL sell, and HP won't get squat.

I respectfully disagree (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800663)

HP is allowed to sell their goods any way they wish. That is capitalism at work.

The catch is, so are their competitors.

How long before you see a Lexmark with this exact same technology at work? Do you think they'll go on a services model? Do you think absolutely everyone in the market will? Even the guys in China?

And when someone finally does start selling the same printer technology rather than leasing it, what will HP have to do to keep up?

Re:I respectfully disagree (2, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800897)

Since it's a business model, HP will patent it. Competition problem solved.

Re:I respectfully disagree (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800949)

<quote>Since it's a business model, HP will patent it. Competition problem solved.</quote>

If that were true, wouldn't somebody patent selling coffee... or fixing a sink?

Re:I respectfully disagree (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801051)

If they have already announced it, it means that the patent has already been granted.

Re:And this is.... (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800683)

I own just about everything, computers, cars, TV, Stereo except my house the bank owns it right now. What you fail to understand about capitalism is when HP's competitors create similar printers and sell them to the public HP will have to sell their's to be competitive. HP is simply trying a different business strategy. Right now paying per page with HP might be cheaper then the cost to own and maintain a printer, this is why HP is able to do this.

Re:And this is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800761)

"Why capitalism doesnt work."

Wow, if that's not a commie comment, I don't know what is.

Actually capitalism clearly works. I live in this place called America and we've been using capitalism for awhile. It's almost old news.

Competition will see to it that there are other forms of printer contracts or whatever. If there is a need for it, someone will step in and make money.

BTW, This is slashdot, people make money here. They probably own lots of crap.

Re:And this is.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800907)

American "capitalism" is about as close to the capitalist ideal as soviet communism was to the communist ideal. That is to say, not very. For starters, america has ever stronger and further reaching patent and copyright monopoly laws - despite propagandists describing these as intellectual "property", they are antithetical to real free-market capitalism at least.

And given America's current state, it's painfully clear to an outside observer (I'm in the EU) that, no, American style capitalism doesn't work - America's heading for a fall, and it'll be a big one (the trick for us europeans would be not getting dragged down with you idiots).

Re:And this is.... (2, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800779)

The only thing I don't own outright are my home (I rent) and my car (until I pay it off). And, as far as those go, ownership is 90% posession, so I at I own 90% percent :)

Capitalism is a system based on the base greed of men (and women). It's not "work hard and see reward"; it's "you want something, you work to get it".

Re:And this is.... (2, Informative)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800791)

Communism instills ownership of the state on all tangible assets. Corporatism instills that ownership is of the corporation via all applicable tools to do so. Ask yourself this: How much stuff do you OWN (not rent, borrow, lease, or other keywords) ?

In communism the state owns everything. Therefore you own 0%, which is a much lower rate than under coporate capitalism.

In communism, one owner owns everything. We call this a monopoly. Under coporate capitalism, I can choose between several coporations to sell my soul to. Even better, I can choose to sell just parts of my soul to various coporations instead of being force to sell 100% of my soul to one state monopoly.

Re:And this is.... (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801063)

---In communism the state owns everything. Therefore you own 0%, which is a much lower rate than under coporate capitalism.

I agree completely with the first part. However, I do not agree with the "much lower rate" comment.

One may start out with a much lower rate of "other-ownership" with corporate capitalism, but once the ball starts rolling, the ownership climbs back to the top. Instead of having one entity owning everything, you have a few companies (which usually go back to bankers and loaning institutions) racking back up the money and lost property.

In Communism, you never had it. In corporate capitalism, you once had it but are now "renting" it. Either way, you dont have it.

---In communism, one owner owns everything. We call this a monopoly.

And that owner is the government. In non-corrupt commune based countries, that means it belongs to the people.

---Under coporate capitalism, I can choose between several coporations to sell my soul to.

That sounds like an oligopoly. My point is that once things are under the rental agreement, it removes Ownership, which was paramount to being free.

---Even better, I can choose to sell just parts of my soul to various coporations instead of being force to sell 100% of my soul to one state monopoly.

Then, I guess this is an exercise on determining either corporations or the state is worse. I'm just dead set that rules set forth indicate that they're equal.

So.... (0, Flamebait)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800461)

..why can't they just sell the printers and then charge like $1000 per cartridge? Don't they kind of follow that model now anyway (i.e. $150 dollar printer that needs $300 toner cartridge)?

Re:So.... (1)

DFENS619 (1008187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800549)

because the difference between buying a hp brand ink cart versus nonname or refill would be too great

What a pity (5, Insightful)

DamnRogue (731140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800465)

"Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient that if HP were to sell these printers, they would never match the money they make from consumables (cartridges etc) now." So they've innovated their way out of their own ability to gouge their customers? My heart bleeds...

Re:What a pity (1, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800621)

No shit, when people ask me if I can help them with their 3 year old printer that has stopped working my first question is does it need new ink soon? The answer is always yes. Okay, for about $100 or less, you can go to the store and buy some new fancy ink that comes shipped with a brand new printer - viola! your problems are solved. It probably has better and more features than your old printer too.

Re:What a pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800787)

Aha, and violin! You now have a new crappy disposable printer that won't last 3 years.

Moron.

Re:What a pity (2, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801053)

Cello! Don't forget it also comes with half empty "starter" ink cartridges.

Re:What a pity (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800837)

I thougt I was the only one. Every year my wife put "ink" on her xmas list. Last time I went it was cheaper to buy a new printer with full ink (that made GREAT prints) than it was to buy ink for her "old" (2-3 yrs?) printer that made crappy prints.

Don't look at me I don't do paper. And am typing this on a 24 year old (M) keyboard.

Re:What a pity (2, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801021)

But printers usually don't come with full ink.

I don't mean to single you out, lots of people say printer cheaper than ink, but ink in new printers is usually 1/4 or 1/2 a store baught cartridge (check product numbers).

Re:What a pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18801143)

Usually the ink cartridge that comes with a new printer has less capacity (or is less filled) than the replacement cartridges you buy separate.
So while it may seem a good deal to get a free printer with your new cartridge, it often is not.

and so they hold the printers hostage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800749)

and milk them with print-on-demand type subscription services!

How innovative (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800473)

Many businesses have been getting printers they way for a long time. The only difference is that this time it's the printer manufacturer that's getting the service contract, and not some third party company. In my opinion, this makes perfect sense. The company who made the product is probably the one most qualified to fix and service it. Granted, you probably won't be able to shop around, because if you want that printer, there's no competition, but you'll still be able to compare with other printer brands.

Re:How innovative (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800667)

It will still be the same third party companies supporting these printers. They will just be "Authorized HP Printer Service Representatives."

Re:How innovative (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801041)

So how is this different from any other printer leasing service. I'm pretty sure that other manufacturers don't honor warranties unless the work is done by a certified repair person. The definitely won't honor the warranty if bob from accounting decides he's going to "fix" the printer.

Copying Xerox (2, Interesting)

flightrisk (468119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800737)

Xerox has this program too. They even use a spam-like domain name [freecolorprinters.com] for their program.

Re:How innovative (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800799)

Hasn't Xerox done this this since, like, the 70s? I always wondered why things like airliners aren't "sold" the same way.

Since 1959 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800885)

leasing their 914 instead of selling it was the decision that catapulted them into the Fortune 50. Few offices could afford to buy a 914 (at many thousands), but leasing one for a few hundred, and paying a few extra for those extra prints was fine.

Re:How innovative (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801061)

They are.

The HP Channel ain't gonna like this... (1)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800957)


The only difference is that this time it's the printer manufacturer that's getting the service contract, and not some third party company.

Woe be unto the OEM that pisses on their channel.

Re:The HP Channel ain't gonna like this... (2, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801153)

They have been pissing on their channel for a long time with online sales; this is just them dropping drawers and shitting on the channel, too.

HP just realizes that they participate in a functional duopoly with a direct-sales competitor who doesn't really have a channel and that they don't need to be slaves to theirs.

I'm surprised that they would approach this printing market, though. One of the advantages owning your own printer has is that its much cheaper to own than any of the "managed services" pay-per-page copiers already in the market.

Re:How innovative (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800995)

I used to work for a repro shop and that's how all thier big printers were handled (kinda). We bought several $150K printers from a company called Oce. So the machines belonged to us. But they were so complex that they required pretty regular maintenence. So the Oce techs were contracted to keep them running. In return for that, we got a heavy discount on toner and paper from Oce.

So we did actually get to buy the machines, but they didn't really do anything unless the manufacturer's tech kept them running for us.

Nice move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800493)

So if you inflate your ink costs so high, you can justify giving printers away?

FSCK! (1)

larry2k (592744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800495)

Say goodbye to the home-printed version of the emacs manual.

cartridge refills (5, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800509)

Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient that if HP were to sell these printers, they would never match the money they make from consumables (cartridges etc) now.
Bull. They realized they can't win against cartridge refills. So this is what they're doing to stop refillers.

Re:cartridge refills (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800577)

Exactly. They claim only a 30% ink saving ... kind of hard to believe that they can't makee it up by increased demand, same as everyone else does when they lower costs.

Re:cartridge refills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18801151)

i second that! complete crap, i love nothing more than when a company needs to improve the bottom line and tells a little white lie to try to mask their intent.

Niceeee. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800545)

So, now they can charge $50 for a print, rather than $50 for a cartridge. Saweeeet.

Products vs. Service (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800559)

I've handled printing/copy contracts and also purchases.

Service is great if you don't want the headache of maintaining the equipment.
Products are great if you don't want want to wait on someone to fix it.

This is leasing vs. purchasing. It's more expensive to lease, but allows for less headaches.

To each their own. I think it's a smart financial move with HP. I don't purchase the printers required to print my photography prints.

Re:Products vs. Service (1)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801115)

This is leasing vs. purchasing. It's more expensive to lease, but allows for less headaches.

To each their own. I think it's a smart financial move with HP. I don't purchase the printers required to print my photography prints.

This is simply their newest tactic in their war on refillers. If this product is successful, the "service only" will be extended to other new models.

That printer sounds like its based on the tech (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800567)

of this company here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/ 22/1241222 [slashdot.org]

Basically the ultrawide print head and instataneous drying times, etcetera. Any confirmation?

Re:That printer sounds like its based on the tech (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801131)

I'll answer my own question, due to the similarities in technology features, boasts of print speeds, and memjets unwillingness to make a product but rather license it - it seemed plausible that HP licensed it but that is probably not the case.

In the article on the /. article I linked to above about memjet, it says:
"HP's competing printer costs $16,000

While Edgeline could be the closest competitor to Memjet in terms of speed, it appears to be far more expensive (than memjet)."

Interesting competition coming up, if memjet is indeed the real thing and not a hoax.

What a bunch.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800587)

..of selfish assholes. No, it's okay, don't try to better society, you have a right to earn as much money as you possibly can.

Pricks.

Better society!? (2, Insightful)

vethia (900978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801147)

Better society? Are you kidding me? You're expecting a printer company to go out and better society? Before you start frothing at the mouth at the 'capitalist pigs' trying to make money on their products, consider this: if creating these printers makes them no money, HP will not manufacture them at all. It's not in their interest to offer a product that will put them out of business.

Yes, it's possible that the efficiency of the printer would cause HP to lose money from ink sales of cartridges for this printer. But did it ever occur to you that such efficient technology might cost a lot more to develop and manufacture? The company needs to recoup costs for these aspects too. Like it or not, they are not creating these printers out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it in order to run a business. Maybe someone else will take it upon him or herself to create some magical free printer for the masses, but I doubt it.

Lastly, these products don't seem designed to be used in the home. That isn't the market that HP is after. When you purchase a contract for one of these machines, it's not like buying a printer--it's like buying a miniature Kinko's that you put in your office and pay as you go for the service. You don't even have to maintain it, if I understand the article correctly. HP does it for you. Sounds like a deal that many companies would be interested in, but if they're not? Nobody's going to make them buy it. There are plenty of printers for sale on the market. Customer demand will determine whether or not this business model is successful--if someone buys it, there must be someone out there who wants it.

Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient (5, Insightful)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800629)

Sounds like a big marketing hype.


COMPANY: Our technology is so good we can't even sell it. But of course if you are willing to pay a premium we might consider it....


COSTOMER: Oh, wow. This shit has to be good if they can't sell it. We have to see if HP will sell it to _us_. We'll even offer them to pay extra.


COMPANY: Suckers...!

...


Reminds of when I went shopping for cars with my uncle in Odessa, Ukraine. This guy was selling used cars. At the end of the lot he had a car covered under a sheet. My uncle asks, what's model you have there. He said "That's not for sale." He then proceeded to tell us how that was a special model blah blah blah. Then my uncle talked him into selling it, payed extra for the 'special' features. Then as we drove away it, the salesman took the sheet and put it on the car right next to it. Seems like HP is doing the same thing here...

Re:Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-effici (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800871)

Reminds of when I went shopping for cars with my uncle in Odessa, Ukraine. This guy was selling used cars. At the end of the lot he had a car covered under a sheet. My uncle asks, what's model you have there. He said "That's not for sale." He then proceeded to tell us how that was a special model blah blah blah. Then my uncle talked him into selling it, payed extra for the 'special' features. Then as we drove away it, the salesman took the sheet and put it on the car right next to it. Seems like HP is doing the same thing here...

Can't say I'm surprised. I've spent a lot of time in Ukraine because I was engaged once to a girl who lived there, but we broke up before getting married. Anyway, I've been to Odessa and of all the places I've been to in Ukraine, probably the most dishonest, greediest people I ever met in Ukraine lived there.

Big Woop cheaper is cheaper (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800687)

Do I care how its cheaper? Already in many large companies Pitney Bowes has some kind of volume printing deal where they own and operate the devices out on the floor. Beats the hell out of device support on my dime every time something goes wrong with these fragile mechanical devices.

Printing Singularity (-1, Offtopic)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800695)

Imagine, if you will, that Intel somehow made an accidental but breakthrough discovery: They could make computers that work 1,000x faster, and have only scratched the surface.

But: They won't sell them to anybody.

They make tons of money, selling their grid computing capacities, at way below cost.

"Intel Search" replaces Google search.

Now suppose Intel were, then, to take a sudden interest in AI research, ...

Mind you, they've patented their work, and said, "We won't sell our work to anybody, on the entire planet."

But we can rest assured, ... ...this kind of scenario could never happen.

Re:Printing Singularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800861)

They'd bump up their current processor line by 10x the speed to kill off the competition and then they'd trickle the rest out as slowly as possible milking it for everything it's worth. Also you are under the mistaken impression that google runs on compute power. It really runs on information availability, that is fat pipes and tons of memory. If anyone develops AI first it will be the ones managing lots of data not the ones with raw compute power. Google is in a sense already a 'primitive AI' in that you can sit in front of your computer and with a little training use it as an oracle.

Cost per page printed (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800701)

I'm in IT, and we measure all costs per page, managed or unmanaged. Most people don't even think of cost over the life of the printer, and choose inkjets because they are 1/5 the price of laser, and spend much more over the life of the printer buying ink.

Re:Cost per page printed (1)

The Queen (56621) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800883)

Exactly. This is why I have a sheet of paper next to my printer, wherein I record every single sheet that comes out of it, which client it was for, and even which project for which client. We then pass those charges along as part of our yearly budgeting proposals.

Yes, it's an hp. Yes, the ink carts are ridiculously expensive. No, I wouldn't have it any other way. :-)

China factor? (3, Interesting)

owslystnly (873793) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800703)

I noticed that the product launch was in China, and that had me thinking...

The chinese are notorious for buying something, reverse engineering it, and within a period of time having a duplicate chinese version for sale. Maybe HP is trying to prevent that from happening?

Re:China factor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800729)

So.. The Chinese will just get a edgeline contract.. Big deal.

Hello, 1959 is calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18800731)

It wants Xerox's strategy of leasing a 914 and charging per click acknowledged.

Now is the time...for an "Open Source" Printer (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800747)

Folks, can anyone say that the time is not right for an "Open Source" printer? A printer of this kind would be loaded with "Open spec" printer ink or tonner formula. We surely can find cheap Asian manufacturers to produce the actual printer hardware.

I am sure some will see my suggestion as trying to cut HP's air supply. I love to say that that's not evil at all.

That would be a timely decision (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800807)

Because HP printers have gone in the fucking toilet and I'm not buying any more of them. We already have a Xerox copier/printer on a lease agreement, so if HP offered me the chance to scream and yell at them instead of IT (a department by which I am employed) I would be interested. I'd love to ditch this HP Laserjet 5550n behind me and to the left for something with Duplex. HP stopped making duplex add-ons for their printers several years ago in order to make shitpiles more money. If you fear you might one day need Duplex, you now have to buy it up-front, or else you end up having to buy a whole new printer to get duplex later. I am absolutely done buying HP printers unless they end this serious case of cranial-rectal inversion.

Re:That would be a timely decision (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800969)

Look on Ebay for that Duplex unit add on. There are still plenty of them out there. You just have to look a little. Ebay, Froogle, craigslist, wierdstuff, ect. I am in the same boat as well, Because I've bought printers in the past and not only did they last a long time. The ink was more effecient as well. I'm currently happy with the older HP printers which do not have counters on thier toner cartridges and drums that limit the number of pages the printer can print rather than the actual supplies and life being the limiting factor.

Broken model? (1, Interesting)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800859)

Here's a new idea. Why not make a printer, and sell it for what it costs to make, plus fair profit for the company? You could even use this same wacky business model for the ink! I know it doesn't quite follow the over-simplified model of selling a printer at just enough to cover your costs, then soak the end user with grossly overpriced consumables because that ensures a source of renewable income, thus making the your budget spreadsheet nice and pretty, but I think people have made it work in the past. Like every company that ever sold anything before the 1970's.

I realize this is the new model that many manufacturers are using since Polaroid started giving away cameras in the 1970's so they could sell the film at insanely high margins, but that's a seemingly short term business model. Eventually, people get wise to your plan, and you start pissing off your loyal customers, who realize full well that they are taking it up the pooper. I wish some company would come out and break this business model. I, as an informed consumer, would pay a little more for a printer if I knew I wasn't getting ripped off on the ink. I can't be the only one out there.

staples and other copy centers (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800903)

Isn't this essentially the same as what copy centers @ Staples and other companies do? I would think that going to service like this would be better because it's done within two days, no need to ship or anything.

Maybe it's just high-maintenance (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800927)

Maybe the problem with the thing is that it takes significant maintenance support. Xerox copiers and printers back in the selenium drum era were leased, because they cost so much and required considerable skilled maintenance. If this new technology has that problem, a lease-only approach at introduction makes sense.

Competition Comes from Older Models (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800935)

I'd be willing to bet that they have it in mind to avoid the competition to future models that this model represents.

For example, I'd have a quite nice office class networked, duplexing, HP laserjet 4si printer nestled under my desk at home. It's a 200lb beast that keeps on printing. The $100 cartridges last a year. I got it for $200 off ebay and $50 for a service kit. To buy something similar new would cost me $4-$5k. I expect that it will keep going for years.

Just as test equipment manufacturers know about their old scopes, HP knows that one of it's biggest competitors is not other printer manufacturers, but the installed base of high quality, high reliability, maintainable workhorse printers they sold in the past.

Leasing printing services rather than selling printers means they never suffer from this new model surviving 15 years down the road, competing with their new new model.

Seems a reasonable thing to do (0, Flamebait)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800953)

As usual, the /. crowd knows nothing of which they speak, yet they shoot their mouths off anyways.

Seems to me that this sort of lease/service agreement is exactly what many medium and large businesses want, and already do for other large items (vehicles, etc).

Consider:

  • Why buy something that depreciates when it can be leased? The cost of the lease is a business expense and simply written off. No depreciation schedules, etc.
  • When the service agreement contract term expires, the business has the option of renewing for another term with the same printer, or replacing the printer with a newer model. Then, the onus is on HP to deal with the disposal of the old printer (can you say "RoHS?" I knew you could), not the business, who'd otherwise have to pay someone to get rid of the old printer, or pay to keep it in storage, or whatever.

Customers + Competitors (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18800987)

...means HP still has to offer "a deal" to customers, otherwise Xerox or another company will take the customer's money.

Good choice for businesses (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801003)

If the cost per print is good I thin k it has a chance. Our copiers are on a "per copy" supplies/maintenence plan (At work we pay our copier co. per the number of copies a month, then the toner drum, maintenece, etc. are provided just by a phone call.)

EdGein printers? (1)

DemonWeeping (849974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801005)

Coffee still hasn't soaked in. I read that as edgein [wikipedia.org] printers. Of course, both will have the same effect on you.

Good riddance (4, Interesting)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801047)

Ever since the Engineers were forced out (early retirement/riffed) and replaced by people who didn't know or work under Bill or Dave, HP's products have sucked.

Their calculators have become a laughing stock. The lucky folks who still have a functional 12c from the days of old (early 80s) will enjoy them for decades more to come. I'd sooner use a bag of rocks than a 12c built during/after the Lewis Platt (successor: Carly) regime.

While this announcement is for a business printer, expect this trend to continue. Cheap printers are a commodity, so squeezing pennies out of the market will eventually lead to "virtual printers" or somesuch idiocy. Smart people are willing to pay for quality, someone just needs to offer a quality printer.

HP isn't the company to do it. Not any more.

HP's loss... (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801069)

...is Epson's gain.

I'm ok with sending finished photography work to a service bureau, but for intermediate prints, I really need to have my own printer. After 20 years of HP printers, my next one'll be Epson...

Flamebait summary... (2, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801103)

Everything in the summary is based on info in TFA, notably EXCEPT that:

Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient that if HP were to sell these printers, they would never match the money they make from consumables (cartridges etc) now."


TFA didn't say that, and I don't see any source for it. What TFA did say was that it will "lower colour operating costs by up to 30 percent".

30% isn't exactly enough to make inkjet cartridge sales worthless, now is it?

Crack Heads (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18801133)

Edgeline technology is said to be so ink-efficient that if HP were to sell these printers, they would never match the money they make from consumables (cartridges etc) now.

Wonder if this amazing technology will ever trickle down to consumer printers (that suck expensive ink like a crack head)...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>