<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Monty J. Harder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjharder@gmail.com">mjharder@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br></div>That is an incredibly short-sighted view, but far too common these days. Once upon a time, HP had a reputation for making better-quality, durable hardware, that worked as advertised for years. That reputation translated into a premium they could charge for their products, like Zippo, Craftsman, or Toyota . (The latter even mentions the superior resale value of their products in advertising new vehicles.)<br>
<br>But when they pull a stunt like this, they tell the intelligent buyer that it's not worth it to spend a few more shekels on good quality; they'll just EOL the thing before the hardware physically wears out. It's almost like you aren't really buying a printer any more; you're leasing it.<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>Short-sighted? That's an odd counter. How is what I've said "short-sighted"? I think you meant to say that my view was incorrect, as you sighted some examples where you claim that's not done. I was a bit general in my statement, would it help to say "_most_ big businesses have a vested interest in forcibly obsoleting old equipment"?<br>
<br>However, in general, I do not feel that what I've said was incorrect. Note my emphasis on the fact that in the computer industry it's faster than in other industries. Ten years is a very long time in computer-years.<br>
<br>With some rare exceptions all manufacturers obsolete old equipment. Toyota, to use your example, no longer manufactures parts for its older cars. While you can buy new parts for some of the more classic older cars that they made through third parties (and perhaps through their parts department as specialty items), for the mundane series they simply no longer get made. You have to either make them yourself or commission someone else to machine them for you. To draw a parallel to this debate, you can either hack your own printer driver or pay someone to hack one for you.<br>
<br>I didn't spend too long looking, but I can't seem to be able to find anyone selling new, genuine Toyota non-consumable parts (like engines) for a 1967 Toyota Corolla 1100. I'd be more than surprised if Toyota still manufactured anything for that car (other than consumable parts like filters, shocks, brake pads, etc). That's forced obsolescence.<br>
<br>I get the feeling that the people in this discussion arguing against HP are doing so from a position of emotion. They don't like the idea of a company ceasing to support something that they think they might still use, or that they feel still has value. I can understand the _feeling_, but it's not logical. Arguing back with me that it's "wrong" is not germane to this argument.<br>
<br>Please provide evidence that it's morally or legally wrong to cease to provide downloaded drivers to a printer that shipped with a CD that contained those drivers. I'd be very amazed if one could make a cogent argument that they're legally infringing or amoral for not providing a free bonus download service to someone that didn't keep an important part of that piece of equipment.<br>
<br>Anyhow, folks can feel free to keep arguing that they feel really awful or really angry about HP's decision. It's silly, as HP isn't their girlfriend and it's not interested in their hurt feelings, as they're irrational and unwarranted. Yes, I'm sure they'll "take your business elsewhere". But guess what? They all work that way. Those folks are just headed for another disappointment. They ought to go back to chasing kids off of their lawns.<br>
<br>J.<br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<br>
</div>