zlacker

An alternative viewpoint is that this business model is good for consumers, or a least differently neutral.

If printer companies try to make their money on the printer sale, then it's very difficult for folks who only need to print a little now and again, and they might not be able to afford a very good printer. By moving to a consumption-based revenue model, now they can let everyone have a super-cheap printer (they are MUCH cheaper than decades ago, despite inflation), and then the people who use the printer more (get more value from it) pay more, and those who don't pay less.

This seems reasonable, even though I also don't like hardware that bricks itself if I don't use as directed.

>>mdavis+(OP)
It doesn't really work out that way though. People who don't need to print very often end up churning through absolutely garbage printers that are more trouble than they're worth and don't last very long before the ink dries up and leaves it a pile of junk. People who print a ton can instead invest a tiny bit more in a printer with notably cheaper per-print costs. It's really better viewed as almost an instance of the Sam Vimes "Boots" theory.