This is why you shouldn’t get your news from clickbait YouTubers. Especially when their source is a three-year-old reddit post that doesn’t even support their claim.
Company’s PR dept saying “we didn’t do it” is not proof of anything.
If they’re not blocking 3rd party cartridges, why even implement DRM?
Do they have so much extra money that they’re developing features they’re not planning to use just because they’re bored?So when someone uses random sludge instead of ink and breaks the printer they can point at that as the cause.
It’s basic CYA. They’ll let you do whatever you want, but if something goes wrong and it breaks then you’re on your own.
That’s a very charitable way of looking at DRM.
In this case, I kind of don’t blame them in terms of warranty work. Like yeah, if the machine faults out within the warranty period, they should replace it. But if the machine breaks because someone uses $3 ink from a bodega that’s made from busted open bic pens, then no manufacturer should be on the hook for replacement when caused by user negligence, and I don’t blame a company for using some measure to determine that.
$3 ink from a bodega
That’s actually a fair price for 3rd party replacement.
I used to work at a computer shop, and people only ever bought the cheapest available cartridges.
We also used to do printer repair, do you know how many printers had to come in because of shitty ink?
The answer is zero.And anyway, in your example the printer manufacturer has no business tracking your ink usage, whether it’s by spying on you and phoning home, or recording this info in the printer’s memory.
My main concern here is that they (allegedly, I haven’t confirmed) remove old firmware. If customers want to try out older firmware to see if that fixes their problem, they should be able to. It doesn’t cost much, so why not?
Yeah, voiding a warranty because the customer used something that could cause irreversible damage makes sense. Removing access to older firmware does not.
Ah, that’s fair on the old firmware bit, I hadn’t heard about that. I have a Brother laser printer, but it’s locked down on my network for phoning home.
I mean “Brother says” is most definitely not proof that that person was wrong. Here’s the question: Has anyone else able to verify their claim? Surely there are tens of thousands of printers out there that someone could verify…?
I’m using a Brother laser with third-party cartridges, and everything still works after the recent firmware update. So I’m inclined to believe them.
I can confirm this. Latest firmware and a generic toner cart. I just printed some stuff yesterday
Same. Updated firmware today.
I hope this is true because we can’t afford to lose the last good guy printer manufacturer.
Problem of course, is that 100 people see the lie (most believe the first thing they hear even if false), then 15 see the truth, and 10 believe it.
But is it a lie?
Here’s what I’ve seen so far:
- Rossmann reports on claims about Brother blocking third party cartridges on auto-updating firmware, and not providing older firmware
- Brother denies intentionally blocking third party cartridges
There’s still the claim about the older firmware. If it was available, it would be pretty easy for customers to prove that a change in the firmware caused issues w/ third-party cartridges:
- cartridge works fine
- upgrade
- cartridge doesn’t work
- downgrade
- cartridge works fine
That doesn’t prove it was intentional, it just proves it was the firmware update that caused the problem. If users want to stick w/ an older firmware, they should be allowed to, because Brother shouldn’t be able to decide what firmware they use.
The broader point here is certainly valid though, I’m just unconvinced that it’s applicable. Why should we trust Brother on this when they make the way to prove the issue nigh impossible?
And those ten who believe it will be the most virulent and arduous propagators of that lie.
I notice it talks about not blocking 3rd party inks, but not (that I saw) about deliberately degrading quality. I hope they’re not doing that either!- but that was the recent accusation.
I read a bit on that though, and what I think happened, is someone got lower quality while using 3rd party ink, after an OTA firmware update, and called customer service. The customer service rep couldn’t answer how to fix it, except using genuine Brother ink, and the user asked a careful question about whether that was the only way. Rep answers yes, which is probably not true but seems like the ‘right’ answer to give; user interprets it as the Rep knowing that there’s a secret and deliberate degradation of quality with 3rd party ink.
deleted by creator
I actually wondered that at the time simply because whenever a new person discovers the horrors of HP printers people in the comments are always boosting Brother printers.
Like, if Canon had been accused of bricking third-party printer ink I’m not sure it would have made the feed.
Exactly. The style of accusations, and the aggressive tone the perpetrators use… This really looks and feels like a smear campaign against Brother.
I’m glad to hear this because I read the other article on the day my Epson decided to suddenly take umbrage with my third party cart after using it without issue for 2 years.
As there is no other viable alternative for a relatively-no-nonsense printer on the market than Brother’s offerings it sounds like I’m not completely out of options quite yet.
