My next printer will definitely not be from HP. Good thing I rejected the last software package HP tried to install on my PC.
I get what HP is saying and they are probably correct - it is "possible" for a very well funded and connected, possibly drug cartel or state sponsored, clandestine cybercrime syndicate to secretly infiltrate (perhaps, or likely, through bribes) a 3rd party cartridge chip maker, then code the firmware used in those cartridges, or replace the firmware chips with infected ones, that are then inserted into their printing devices by unsuspecting users. This malicious code "could" then infect the printing device, which then distributes said code to the connected network. Piece of cake, right? I think that is "possible" - just like it is "possible", one day, we humans may have a tourist colony on the surface of the sun. I mean it is only 93 million miles away and takes just 8 minutes to get there, at the speed of light. And we already know how to deal with temperatures that hot. So why not? But let's assume it is possible today. An infected printer IN NO WAY suggests that malicious code will get past all my security defenses on my computers (which is nothing special or unusal) and infect my computer systems - just like if my grandson brings his infected laptop over to my house and connects to my wifi. That will NOT infect my computers. Nor will my "smart" TV if I download and install an infected firmware update. And what is to stop the bad guys with super deep pockets from infiltrating, bribing and introducing infected code into HP's own chips? Why does HP pretend it could only happen to 3rd party cartridges? And if it was this easy to infect a HP printing device, what is to stop a badguy from developing code that infects the printing device through its own network connection? IMO, if HP was truly worried about this, why don't they code the printing device's firmware with anti-malware code to block any "malicious" code - regardless where it comes from? That's actually part of the problem. When you can buy a brand new wireless, color, HP printer/scanner/copier for $50, who is going to want to spend $55 for replacement OEM 67XL ink? *** (@stapp - I think you need to edit your thread title. The report does not say HP is bricking "PCs". They are bricking "printers" and claiming "networks" can then be infected.)
True, I used to know someone that would buy a printer, use the ink, sell the printer on eBay, and then buy a new printer. He said he usually got enough for the used one to cover the cost of the new one. I don't know why anyone would buy the used one, but that is not my problem.
I think the comments there show how people feel about this overall. It might be a good solution for some but I suspect it will cost them more customer than it will earn them.
Sadly I have to disagree here. The people there are more pc savvy than the general population (since they read tech news). Most users wouldn't look up if third party ink exists before buying. They just buy a cheap printer, then they will whine when they see that there is no cheap ink and either pay for the original ink or use the great "ink subscription" service. Don't get me wrong I really hope they will crash and burn with that move, sadly I just don't think that it is gonna happen.
My problem is I might print 10 pages a month. So $6.99/month for 20 printed pages (the cheapest plan) is WAY more than I need. I suspect my usage pattern is not uncommon. For businesses and households with a herd of school-age kids, these plans may be a good idea. But I note many kids these days are required to email or upload their assignments - not hand in print outs. And that makes sense if we are trying to save the trees, stop littering the streets or clogging up landfills (with paper and ink cartridges).
Possibly but many will ask someone like me (or many of us) for a recommendation before buying. I would certainly recommend another brand.
