Reminds me of my all-in-one "Ink Advantage" HP printer. The cost of ink cartridge had gone so high that it was reasonable to just not use it anymore. The cartridges can be reliably refilled 3-4 times but they put an artificial #X papers print limit on each of those cartridges and show cartridge needs to be replaced message once those limits are reached. Once there was a firmware update for some vulnerability, and the update somehow erased the previous cartridges used and I was able to refill and reuse all of my previous cartridges twice again so I know cartridges were in perfect condition despite the printer saying otherwise. It remains one of my most regretted purchases till date. Only if someone had the time and motive to jailbreak it :(
As another commenter mentioned, laser printers are preferable for documents precisely because of this kind of nonsense. They were already cheaper per page for document printing anyway, but the inkjet manufacturers appear determined to cannibalize their own primary market with these schemes.
That said, since developing a serious interest in photography, I've made the delightful discovery that per-page ink pricing schemes, such as HP's "Instant Ink", can be very effectively leveraged to make photo printing as close to free as it's possible to get, with the incremental cost per print being effectively just that of whatever paper you choose to use.
I've since moved up to a large-format inkjet for most of my prints, not least because I was hard up against the limit of what a general-purpose CMYK system can do, especially when it comes to contrast in monochrome images. But for small-format stuff that isn't quality-critical, the OfficeJet still works fine, and I'm still paying $3 a month for all the ink I can eat.
Inkjet makers are not cannibalizing their own market. They understand the basic reason that people purchase inkjet printers in the first place—because they think about capital costs and not operating costs.
Most people I know who bother any more to own document printers own lasers, precisely because the operating costs are so much lower. I actually don't think anyone I know even still has an inkjet, except for other photographers.
It's funny because lasers are better for people like me who very infrequently print documents. I don't need things printed often, so I was always having the ink dry out and be unusable when I needed it.
My color laser printer that I got a few years back is just so much better in every way.
Yes. I have an ink tank Epson inkjet, so there's no nonsense about overpriced ink cartridges. The trouble is, if I don't print anything for a week or two, I have to go through the nozzle cleaning cycle a few times before clean prints come out.
Inkjets are actually superior to color laser for photo quality, but almost everyone would be better served by just having their occasional photo printed at Walgreens or target
That doesn't work for everyone. We print a lot of kid photos for albums and what not. And then grandma visits, and we hand her the phone, and say "press here if you like the picture" and minutes later she has the prints. The short latency and not having the hassle of a 20 minute trip is worth the investment in our case.
Yeah, I'd figure if you plotted a distribution of photo printing frequency you'd see a pretty sharp peak centered on zero and a very long, very skinny tail. The cutoff for "makes more sense to order prints at need" vs. "makes more sense to own and maintain printing equipment" would probably happen right about where that tail started.
For sure, yeah. I print and frame my own because I like to print and frame my own, not because it's really all that cost-effective. It's not overly expensive to do my own, especially since I lucked out and got my large-format printer for $100 with a stock-clearing rebate, but if I didn't enjoy the feeling of reifying my own work that comes with the process, I'd likely be better served having it done by Bay Photo or some other shop that specializes in it.
(I do get my prints from Bay Photo when they're too large for my own equipment, which tops out at 13x19". They're super good! I can really recommend them.)
There's an exception to this for wide-format color laser printers. I have occasional need to print 11x17's, but relatively infrequently. When I do have the need, I can't afford a delay, and I often need to do a quick repeat when I spot a small mistake or something. Unfortunately, the jump from a color laser that will handle 8.5x11's to 11x17's is like at least $1,500, whereas I can get an inkjet that will do 11x17's for like $300.
Well, yeah, for sure. Outside the "monochrome, mostly text, on US letter or smaller paper" use case, lasers get pretty wild pretty fast.
For photos specifically, I haven't recently had the chance to compare, but I would not expect any even remotely consumer-attainable laser printer to produce results on par with inkjet. A lot of the reason inkjets have gotten so good over the last decade or so has been trickle-down of tech developed for the professional market, I believe thanks in no small part to the gallery market for "giclée" fine art prints. For color management as well as print quality, I just don't think laser can get there, and even if it did, I'd expect a comparable result to cost an order of magnitude or two more.
Maybe this reflects more on the people you know, and they can afford to worry about operating costs? Most of my community is college students, and I don't know anyone who owns a laser printer. I simply don't own a printer at all and only print at the office, because the printers I can afford suck that much to own. I suspect you'd see similar problems among most of the target market for inkjets - we can't afford to have nice things.
I mean, most of the people I know don't bother to own any kind of printer. What I'm saying is, except for a very few who, like me, optimize for maximum photo print quality and are willing and able to pay extra for it, those few I know who do bother to own printers have lasers, because they're no more expensive to buy these days, and a whole lot cheaper to feed.
I've never been a college student, but I've been plenty broke a few different times in my life. If anything, the relevance of being flush would seem to be in not having to worry about operating costs. I sure as hell would never have considered buying a photo printer that eats three bucks in ink per print, and God knows how much in cleaning cycles, if I wasn't lucky enough to be flush these days. Sure, I got it cheap with a rebate, but so what? It's the running costs that kill you, if anything does.
I just bought a used laser printer for 40 Euro when i was a student. Many years later I bought a new toner for 20-30 Euro. The printer is one of the best investments I ever made. It rarely gives me any trouble and when I need to print something it just works, even when I haven't used it in months.
> I've made the delightful discovery that per-page ink pricing schemes, such as HP's "Instant Ink", can be very effectively leveraged to make photo printing as close to free as it's possible to get, with the incremental cost per print being effectively just that of whatever paper you choose to use.
Would you care to add some more details? Is this an all-you-can-print deal with a fixed monthly price or something?
Just the opposite. It's priced entirely by monthly page count; IIRC the first 100 pages per month are included in the base fee ($3 a month, last I checked), and you pay an extra $1 for every 10 pages in a given month. Since it's a subscription, they just tack on the extra charges after the fact. (I think the extra page rate, at least, depends on plan; trust their pricing info over mine, ofc.)
In exchange for the subscription, your printer automatically requests replacement ink cartridge sets to be shipped whenever the installed set runs low. That doesn't cost extra, and if there's a rate threshold past which it stops happening, I've never hit it.
Ultimately, this works out, by design, as a terrible deal for printing documents, sold entirely on the idea of convenience. But if you're printing photos, in which every sheet that goes into the printer comes out with ink all over it, the deal turns upside down, because the incremental cost of that ink is zero. And, as a nice side benefit, you get fresh cartridges shipped to your door a little before you need them, without having to think about reordering at all.
Last I checked, MSRP for a full CMYK set of first-party cartridges for an Officejet 8610 is $160. At $3 a month for the "Instant Ink" thing, it takes a little over four years to add up to the same cost as one regular replacement set.
The only true drawback I can see here, for the photo printing use case, is that while a printer is enrolled in Instant Ink, it won't take cartridges not provided through that program. That might be a headache if you want to keep an extra backup set handy, but it's never been a problem for me since I set my printer up with the program some time in 2017. It definitely does prevent using remanufactured, refilled, or third-party carts - but, again, that's never been something I felt the need to do while getting first-party ones for ~free, and I doubt I'll change my mind on that as long as HP keeps playing themselves this way.
(For what it's worth, I thought twice about describing all this in such detail, just in case somebody at HP might notice and care enough to make a change. But what the hell, right? This stuff would take five minutes of BI work to find out, given the data they must certainly have for the program to operate as it does at all. That they leave it as it is tells me they don't care, and why would they? Almost all the program's enrollees are no doubt getting the bad end of the deal, and I'm sure it helps them sell printers, so it's no skin off their nose either way.)
I'm pretty sure HP is completely aware of what you're doing and it's not a scheme at all. Professionals using large format inkjet printers are an important market for HP. As for the ink being "basically free", well, ink is pretty much free for HP to manufacture.
At the end of the day, the printers are expensive enough for HP to turn a profit on them. So it makes perfect sense to flip the razorblade model on its head and earn large margins on the printers while selling the ink at barely above cost. Professionals wouldn't have it any other way, as their margins simply would not sustain the exorbitant prices of consumer off-the-shelf ink. If HP doesn't sell them "basically free" ink, they'll get it from somebody else.
My large-format printer is a Canon. I have no idea whether HP's pro line is eligible for the program, but the HP printer I use with it is a bottom-end office AIO. They're explicitly targeting the consumer and SOHO markets in their promotional material for the program, so I'd be surprised if their pro stuff works with Instant Ink, instead of maybe with a similar program that's adjusted to work out better in the sort of context where a higher-end printer like that will see use.
I guess thinking about it, them knowing they're basically giving away ink as I described would be just another confirmation that ink is basically free to manufacture and sell.
Print heads probably aren't, though. I mean, I was thinking that a $160 MSRP for the four-cart CMYK set from HP seemed absurd, considering that an eight-cart set for my Pixma Pro 100 only runs about a hundred bucks. But then I remembered that that Pixma set is just ink tanks and ink. The print head is a separate part - and it costs $350.
Given the precision manufacturing requirements for a modern inkjet print head, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the economics of the Instant Ink program actually work out as well for HP as they do for me, despite that the way I use the program means I get basically free ink. What I mean by that is, part of the deal I forgot to mention earlier is that you use the packaging from the replacement cartridge set to ship back the cartridges it's replacing - I would not be at all surprised to learn that those carts get refurbished, refilled, and reused, and that the reason it can work so cheaply and no one cares is because (damage and mishandling excepted) it's still saving the manufacturing cost of a new print head.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that if you subtract profit from that $160 MSRP for a fresh set of HP CMYK cartridges, you'd find most of what was left going to pay for the four print heads in those cartridges, not the ink that you'd be running through them.
Does anyone in the "printer ink costs more than gold" discourse ever think about this? I don't recall seeing it mentioned anywhere, and I guess that's fair since it was only thinking about my relatively unusual high-end photo printer that led me to realize it. But I feel like it might be a pretty important point in that whole discussion.
That angers me so much. In university I owned an Epson inkjet printer that refused one night to print out my paper in b&w because the cyan cartridge was empty.
Never bought an Epson cartridge after that, only counterfeits on eBay.
That's a logical conclusion, but many printers outright refuse to operate if any of the cartridges are out, regardless of whether the print job requires that particular color.
I'm sure many people would happily shift from printing all black, to all cyan, then all magenta (yellow probably isn't practical) in an attempt to get maximal utility out of their color cartridge otherwise.
I've been really happy with a similar Cannon printer (Cannon G3200).
The print quality is quite good, it comes with an insane amount of ink, and you literally buy full replacement bottles of ink and pour them in the tanks.
No artificial page limits, no checks for non-oem ink.
For a start, laser printers have become incredibly cheap. I bough a Brother all-in-one color laser printer about 10 years ago and it's still going. I don't print much so I think I've only had to replace the black toner cartridge once in that whole time.
Unless your primary printing activity is printing photos, there's not much reason to buy an inkjet printer these days.
I have been using a Brother HL-2130 laser printer which cost less then 100 EUR for nearly 10 years now. Every 1-2 years, I buy a cheap toner (under 20 EUR) online. By far the most reliable printer I have ever owned.
I've been wondering for a while why it is that market forces haven't given us a printer that escapes the razor business model (low unit price combined with extortionate ink prices and anti-consumer practices to oppose third-party ink solutions). Seems to me that the way for a printer company to beat the competition would be to offer a product that isn't anti-consumer. Is that essentially what this printer is doing?
Can anyone comment on how it compares to a cheap laser printer?
I'm still researching that topic and it seems even the eco-tank brick themselves once the ink-pad is deemed to be too full.
So even if you replace the ink-pads you have to use some kind of illegal software to reset the number of pages printed, so the printer think it's brand new and allow you to print again. This really should be an option, even if it's hidden far down the printing menu.
Which I guess is prone to the usual arms race between the OEM and the pirate, so assuming your printer software is up to date, it's probably hard to reset the page count.
So yeah, still searching to see how much a problem it is, but that's a big no-no for me if true. Particularly for a product that brands itself as being more environment conscious...
I don't get you. It uses refillable ink tanks, right? Why would they be over-full, and why would the manufacturer care? How could they ever detect third-party ink?
My assumption was that they were charging more for the printer and being 'permissive' regarding ink (that is to say, allowing the customer to do what they want with equipment they own).
They look like they're somewhat high maintenance. [0][1]
> Epson uses an "inkpad" to clear its printer (jets?) before printing. Eventually the amount of ink deposited in this blotter-type system fills and must be replaced. Unfortunately it seems as if replacing the inkpad is very messy and difficult. Our printer is used so frequently that the inkpad needs to be replaced every six months.
> Epson charges enough to make replacing the entire unit a (sadly) reasonable option.
I suspect you're confusing your personal - understandable - desire for cheap ink with "market forces."
Basic business analysis suggests there are very few practical ways in which a newcomer to the market could produce a product with no anti-consumer features that is also realistically profitable.
Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it.
Note I'm not disagreeing that we all want cheap inks without gouging. But I am disagreeing that it's realistic to expect "market forces" to provide this when they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now.
I'm not thinking of myself here, I very rarely print anything. Roughly once a year. I don't even own a printer myself, I'm generally able to use someone else's, or if it really comes to it, I'm happy to pay a professional printing service a few pounds.
My assumption is that people who print a few pages a week would rather spend more upfront, and less on ink. It's not a technical question, it's a matter of someone making a standard inkjet printer and charging more for it while charging less for ink, and removing restrictions against third-party ink.
> Selling on low price -> volume alone - assuming a newcomer could even make that happen - won't do it.
Why not? Why wouldn't people buy this if it existed? Why wouldn't a newcomer to the market go this route?
> they're far more likely to do the opposite. And in fact have been doing the opposite for decades now.
This seems to be true, but I don't understand why. Doesn't it just take one of the printer companies to break away from the pack?
Perhaps I'm overestimating how willing people would be to spend upfront to minimise their long-term ink costs.
If a company would market a printer which is actually not cheating you - and people would believe it - you would have a pretty outstanding feature in a market, allmost everyone hates.
It is just, that probably no one would believe it.
why it is that market forces haven't given us a printer that escapes the razor business model
There are, they are called industrial printers. The ones used for printing packaging and other very high-volume applications. Relatively low resolution, but ultra high speed and printable area size. They also cost much more than any individual or business not in the printing industry would ever want to pay for a printer. Something like this...
I programmed for a refurbishing company for some time, where I learned about toner cartridge refill kits. Once you've bought an expensive copier for your company you're vendor locked into proprietary toner cartridges, and they charge outrageous prices. "Pirates" started selling bags of toner and syringes on eBay with instructional videos on how to refill the cartridge yourself. The toner company started putting small chips on the cartridge that would count the number of prints, and deactivate the cartridge after a certain amount. "Out of toner" was a lie, it was unauthorized printing. Reading this story is making me sick to my stomach.
The first one allowed you use refillable K-cups so you could make coffee really fast using your own grounds.
The second one had a DRM module that didn't allow you to put in 'Unathorized Coffee'.
Regarding Unathorized Bread, I actually found the story of the cancer patients to be far more realistic and made me realize how people get radicalized easily. The story is something that should be read for yourself but I was on the edge of my seat through it.
I edited the word "radicalized" out of my original comment to make it more concise, but that's exactly how I feel. I had medical issue while I was in a foreign country that cost me $35 to see a doctor and get medicine. When I returned to America, in between jobs and in between health care providers, the same medicine cost me $500, and that's only because I was able to have a doctor-friend phone in the prescription so I didn't have to pay for a doctor's visit too. This was the same winter I learned about toner-pirates, and I found my contact lens prescription were held from me unless I paid for another eye exam. I'm tired of protecting myself from this predatory system.
The medical system in America is fetishized suffering.
My partner is lucky enough to have "very good" insurance through their employer. They recently had to have a scan done to check for serious problems. We got a bill for $500, half for the hospital and specialist, and half for the scan itself and the people providing it.
I took a look at how the costs broke down. In fact, the "real" cost was $5000, and the insurance company paid 90% of that. I started digging and discovered that they pay just about 90% of all medical treatment across the board (for a very small set of in-network physicians and hospitals). Even putting aside whether $5000 was a reasonable cost for this 1 hour procedure (probably not), this left me wondering, why 90%? Why pay such an extraordinarily high percentage, but not all of it?
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that it's a combination of two factors. One is that it's absolutely unacceptable to Americans for individuals to ever receive anything for free. You absolutely have to suffer in some way for every good thing you're allowed to have. The other is that I think they want to actively dissuade you from getting the medical care you need unless it's crucial, because someone worked the math out and putting a slight disincentive on medical care works out slightly cheaper for them than just letting people have what they need with the insurance they're already paying for.
The result in human costs is enormous. My partner has cried about this on and off for weeks because $500 is a very consequential amount of money for us, and we didn't have even a ballpark estimate before the procedure of how much it would cost.
So yes, it's radicalizing as hell. Burn this system to the ground.
As far as billing goes I view US hospitals basically as criminal organizations. They lie, make up things, hide things and make no effort to do better. Problem is that a lot of people are making a very good living off this insane system and will fight any change tooth and mail.
I think radicalized is a good word. Some laws and rules just don’t deserve respect. I have no respect following IP laws that protect printer manufacturers to rip off customers with their overpriced supplies . A lot of US laws about importing pharmaceutical drugs don’t deserve respect . Neither do most of the drug laws in general.
Laws are principally about justice. The minute the law is warped to enhance personal gain, or twisted so it is about furthering a political agenda instead of about balancing the needs of all individuals, it becomes a perversion of justice. It brings both the law and the abstract concept of justice into disrepute.
This will lead to anarchy and the caveman with the biggest club will be the alpha silverback again.
If a law does not deserve respect, it must be struck down, else they will all be struck down.
As long as a lot of laws aren’t made from ethical principle but mainly for favored individuals or groups what do you want to do? I think most advances in society have been achieved by people breaking laws and effecting change that way. The whole civil rights and labor movements were about breaking immoral laws.
> I found my contact lens prescription were held from me unless I paid for another eye exam
I had this happen to me when I was younger. Lady basically said they only do eye exams and then they offer to sell you the prescription separately... some bullshit.
When I got my exam I asked about diving lenses which they don't sell. They then gave me a prescription and my pupil distance so I can order them. Of course I was buying their glasses which made them more inclined to like me.
The exam policy is corporate rent-seeking. The people who are actually doing the work are far more likely than not to personally side with the customer, although they're not going to risk their jobs (and possible future blacklisting) over it. Making any sort of even temporary personal connection with the person giving you the test will probably get you your pupil distance if you ask.
> will probably get you your pupil distance if you ask.
I just walked into a lenscrafters in the mall and asked for mine. Guy measured it and scrawled it on a card. Didn't even have to wait.
But if interpupilary distance is all you need, lenscrafters is overkill. It's easy to measure at home, you just need a metric ruler and a youtube tutorial.
Interesting about your story where having to pay for another eye exam... I heard someone ended up breaking their pair of glasses and knew their prescription so went to go back to the same shop to get a new pair, but they wouldn't let him until getting another eye exam... Yet there's sites now where you can just order glasses online like Warby Parker. I don't know how many people have a relationship with their eye doctor, but I'd be tempted to just say screw them and order it online, but then might burn a bridge for any future appointments maybe.
Not sure why they try to limit people directing their own care. Kinda like some states it's illegal to get bloodwork or other tests without a doctor, or even those DNA based heritage tests. Like there's some site that lets you measure your testosterone, but New York and like 2 other states banned at home tests.
Then there's some company now where you sit your laptop on a table and use your phone to go back so many feet, and can do an eye test. Some tested it and got the same results as their eye test done offline - but of course some states banned that site too. https://youtu.be/DTgmJqbXg1s talks about that case.
I was in mexico and went to the doctor once. He had office hours in a small office at a nearby farmacia. He took the time, listened to me, wrote me a prescription, and charged me the equivalent of 2 USD. The medicine was modestly priced as well.
In the US, doctors seem to have 15-minute windows to diagnose and solve your problem.
My primary care physician seems more relaxed, but I think it might be - #1 that I organize everything before I see her (15 minute anxiety) - #2 she might actually have a 30-minute window. The only advantage I've noticed is that once I suggested an extra blood test done or something and she quickly acceded instead of taking the time to talk about it (I think).
Funny story about the K-cup thing, the DRM could be defeated with some tape. Shortly after that discovery, someone (wish I could remember their name) proceeded to manufacture little clip-on plastic parts and send them to people for free. They were real, injection-molded plastic parts, too. Not 3D printed ones, though you could 3D print one for yourself. I've still got one of the original ones somewhere around here.
There's no way the story wasn't posted on HN, but I don't think I'd be able to find it easily.
E: Turns out my search fu is better than I realized. It was called the Freedom Clip. Even Walmart sells them these days.
At work we had a KCup machine but when I brought in some K cups I bought they wouldn't work. It was a branded K cup but not for the newer machine. I figured out i could take the foil lid of an approved K cup and stick it on the unauthorized K cup.
The "template" foil was left by the machine on a paperclip for anyone to use.
It's high time for legislation banning this crap, or at the very least mandating an up-front warning à la "this product will stop functioning after n uses".
Fixing existing legislation like copyright law so that it can't be abused to protect this behavior would be enough; the market will do the rest and there's going to be a whole (legalized) industry specializing in cracking and unlocking (effectively repairing) defective by design products.
In theory, this sort of thing may constitute copyright abuse, but I think you'd have to fight against each case separately which makes it pretty much intractable.
It'd be much better to simply ban lockout chip type nonsense for 3rd party parts, though I suspect they'd still find ways to make compatibility difficult :/
You don't want someone messing with emissions or doing other tweaks that make your nice used car into a money pit because it was abused.
I'm not sure how you counter the above, but it really needs to be handled, otherwise too much power will fight against it. If you can find a good way to handle this I'm all for it.
Unfortunately it seems we can't fix it with legislation until we fix our democracy.
88% of democratic voters support Medicare For All, but the DNC just voted against including it as part of their platform.
The elected leaders in this country no longer serve their constituents, instead serving corporations.
I think the vast majority of people in technology understand the DMCA is a horrible law - but at least it doesn't kill people. But if we can't get politicians to recognize the immorality our our current state of "cancer will bankrupt your family, even if you're insured and it also kills you", I don't know what hope we have on fixing copyright.
Yeah, the pirate chips are curing the symptom and not the disease though. I think Smart TVs are a really concerning symptom. If 1984 were about tyrannical corporations and not tyrannical governments, telescreens would be spot-on for Smart TVs.
My price barrier for smart devices is whether I would scream if I dropped it in the toilet and ruined it. $5 smart outlet? Sure I'll put my lamps on those. $25 streaming dongle? All right, that'll last at least five years before Netflix decides it isn't secure enough.
$500 television? Hell no. $1200 in home automation and surveillance linked to a central hub? I wasn't dropped on my head as a child, so no.
Presumably you're buying more than one remotely-switched outlet, and their software will fail at the same time. So the actual risk there is much higher than $5.
The way I see it is buy devices that can be controlled with Free software, don't give them Internet connectivity, and plan on never "upgrading" the firmware. The TP-LINK Kasa line works well for me (their protocol is trivially obfuscated), as well as anything that can be flashed with Tasmota.
Also in general you don't want to go too cheap on anything that switches line current. I have to wonder how many of those fly by night "Amazon brands" are getting creepage right.
It's already been working perfectly with my HS103 and HS110 plugs for months. The only thing still missing for me is the per-plug energy meter of my HS300 strip, which I hope will be coming very soon.
Nice. I've been driving mine directly with Home Assistant, but it has some warts. So I do have the itch to write my own daemon that controls them, and publishes a better interface via MQTT.
At $5 per outlet I'd be worried about one of them burning my house down.
I don't buy smart stuff because the intersection between "expensive enough to not be a fire hazard" and "not 5x overpriced for the value-add" is an empty set.
Not sure why you were downvoted, so I gave you an upvote. You have a valid opinion, expressed with a bit of amusing hyperbole. I agree with the gist of it, I don't trust any cloud connected smart devices, because I know how the sausage is made, from the device firmware, to the cloud software, to the all-consuming pressure to make a profit regardless of privacy or ethical issues.
The irony of the ad box blurb for the book itself fits in:
"...currently available in paperback and Kindle formats."
It's also available in several other ebook formats not authorized for use with the affiliate link. The local library offers Adobe EPUB, Open EPUB, and OverDrive Read as well. All the better for reading on my unauthorized jailbroken ereader.
Read this as part of Cory Doctorow's "Radicalized" compilation. The whole set of short stories are awesome. If you're enjoying the excerpt, I suggest just buying the book and starting from the beginning.
“Ask for your appliance to work. If they don't get your appliance to work, ask for toasted bread. If they do not get your appliance to work or toast your bread, then take their toasted bread.”
Is there a list somewhere of consumer stuff that has DRM? I knew about printer ink. But, I was surprised to find that some refrigerators have DRM water filters.
I'm a little disappointed that he didn't call it something like "Juicero World", given how on-the-nose he can rarely seem to help himself from being. But hey, he's the successful author, I have to assume he knows what he's doing.
I've only read one Doctorow book, Pirate Cinema (plus one long story which I apparently found the premise intriguing and the execution lacking but have otherwise forgotten). I found Pirate Cinema to be annoyingly doctrinaire and not very well written. It was kind of like reading Soviet "proletarian literature" with a different underlying ideology (or the sentimental religious literature popular among some folks). From the brief bit I read and knowing what I know about Doctorow, I would expect this to be more of the same. Ideology never makes for good fiction.
Jiminy Crickets, what a diatribe. Maybe that reads like something clever to a layman, but from where I stand its a tired run-on rant. How it got any kind of recognition is a puzzle to me.
