Photosmart Printer was a mistake

You buy the Photosmart printer for $149. You think, wow, great price for a great printer, right? The only down side is the fact that it only performs well with that special proprietary paper from HP. You muse, "Gee I hope it's always available for a reasonable price. It should be. Afterall, HP is a brand you can trust, right?"

A few months later very few outfits carry the Photosmart paper, and, in its scarcity, it's now priced at a premium. So, here I am thinking, will I buy an HP next time round? I seriously doubt it. From all I've read, Epson and the others all make printers that work well with a variety of papers, and those papers are all readily available. Me--I've got this Edsel that only takes leaded gas, and no one seems to sell leaded gas any more!--Jim

A lot of this is out of HP's control.

One of the reasons why we enjoy good prices on computer products is that many competing vendors offer the same products. Vendors don't have much incentive to carry obsolete products, so there is less competition, these products are hard to find, and prices are higher.

I think you can criticize HP for hitting a design dead-end with the old Photosmart line, but I don't think you can criticize them for failing to control the free market; nobody can do that.

Ron Parr

I have a crazy idea! When those competing vendors lose confidence in their ability to sell an HP product, HP could support that product by selling supplies directly to the public AT A REASONABLE MARK-UP instead of their usual ultra-high prices!!! Come on, HP, you're a big boy--behave responsibly to those folks who trusted you and bought your products!!!

Ron Parr said:

A lot of this is out of HP's control.

One of the reasons why we enjoy good prices on computer products is that
many competing vendors offer the same products. Vendors don't have much
incentive to carry obsolete products, so there is less competition, these
products are hard to find, and prices are higher.

I think you can criticize HP for hitting a design dead-end with the old
Photosmart line, but I don't think you can criticize them for failing to
control the free market; nobody can do that.

Ron Parr

Click to expand...

Eventually, HP should do this. I suspect the problem is that the conventions for product markups are pretty strict. I don't know how it works for consumables, but for hardware the rules at typically 2X your cost when sold to the distributor and another 2X when the distributor sells it to retailers. That's right - you pay 4X manufacturing cost for most products!

The problem for a manufacturer that wishes to sell a product directly is that the manufacturer can't charge less than 4X manufacturing cost or he is viewed as competing with the stores that he would want to sell his product. When a firm is in a position of trying to convince stores to carry its product, the one thing it can't do, oddly enough, is to lower the price. If the manufacturer does this, distributors drop the product.

I agree that eventually, HP should give up and just sell the product direct at a lower markup, but it's not clear that they have hit this point yet.

Ron Parr

Jim Toenail said:

I have a crazy idea! When those competing vendors lose confidence in
their ability to sell an HP product, HP could support that product by
selling supplies directly to the public AT A REASONABLE MARK-UP instead
of their usual ultra-high prices!!! Come on, HP, you're a big
boy--behave responsibly to those folks who trusted you and bought your
products!!!

Click to expand...

Jim Toenail said:

You buy the Photosmart printer for $149. You think, wow, great price for
a great printer, right? The only down side is the fact that it only
performs well with that special proprietary paper from HP. You muse, "Gee
I hope it's always available for a reasonable price. It should be.
Afterall, HP is a brand you can trust, right?"

A few months later very few outfits carry the Photosmart paper, and, in
its scarcity, it's now priced at a premium. So, here I am thinking, will
I buy an HP next time round? I seriously doubt it. From all I've read,
Epson and the others all make printers that work well with a variety of
papers, and those papers are all readily available. Me--I've got this
Edsel that only takes leaded gas, and no one seems to sell leaded gas any
more!
--
Jim

Click to expand...

HP provides a customer satisfaction and service department for odering supplies for the Photosmart printer. They include free delivery and their prices are competative with retail stores. Contact HP for their phone number. You do not have to worry about being left short.

Tony, I appreciate your contribution, but with all due respect you are very much wrong. When I bought my Photosmart printer I was able to buy Photosmart items for nearly half what HP charged for them. HP is still charging those inflated prices, but the other retailers have dropped out of the game. The long is short is I'm forced to pay premium prices when before I didn't have to.

And I'm not talking about a few cents. For example, I used to be able to buy Photosmart Matte Finish 4x6 paper (20 pages) for about 4 dollars. No else is offering it online now, although HP has it on its site for $6.99.

"A very great man once said some folks will rob you with a fountain pen--it don't take too long to find out just what he was talkin' about."

Tony Mihok said:

Member said:

--
Jim

Click to expand...

HP provides a customer satisfaction and service department for odering
supplies for the Photosmart printer. They include free delivery and their
prices are competative with retail stores. Contact HP for their phone
number. You do not have to worry about being left short.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on this case directly but there is a reason while almost all those printers work best with the papers and inks coming from the manufacturer (that's also true for others, not just HP) : HP, Epson, Canon and whoever else, don't make any money with the printers! Believe it or not, but it's true. The money is made with consumables, i.e. Inks and papers which you are essentially forced to buy for the next few years.

Chris

Ron Parr said:

The problem for a manufacturer that wishes to sell a product directly is
that the manufacturer can't charge less than 4X manufacturing cost or he
is viewed as competing with the stores that he would want to sell his
product. When a firm is in a position of trying to convince stores to
carry its product, the one thing it can't do, oddly enough, is to lower
the price. If the manufacturer does this, distributors drop the product.

I agree that eventually, HP should give up and just sell the product
direct at a lower markup, but it's not clear that they have hit this
point yet.

Ron Parr

Jim Toenail said:

I have a crazy idea! When those competing vendors lose confidence in
their ability to sell an HP product, HP could support that product by
selling supplies directly to the public AT A REASONABLE MARK-UP instead
of their usual ultra-high prices!!! Come on, HP, you're a big
boy--behave responsibly to those folks who trusted you and bought your
products!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chris,

When I bought my Photosmart printer last summer, I was buying HP 4x6 Photosmart paper for a little more than 4 dollars a box. Presumably, the retailer I was buying it from was making a profit, and so was HP. Now that no one else seems to be selling this item, why is it that HP feels it has to sell it for 7 dollars a box?

I can understand "making money with consumables" as you put it, but I can't understand why the folks at HP seem to be gouging the people who put their in them.

If HP had been selling this item to Buy.com and the others for 2, 3 or 4 dollars a box, why are they jacking the price up to 7 dollars for you and me, especially now that no one else is selling this stuff? Don't they see how they're letting us down?

Toenail is not happy.

Chris said:

Chris

Ron Parr said:

The problem for a manufacturer that wishes to sell a product directly is
that the manufacturer can't charge less than 4X manufacturing cost or he
is viewed as competing with the stores that he would want to sell his
product. When a firm is in a position of trying to convince stores to
carry its product, the one thing it can't do, oddly enough, is to lower
the price. If the manufacturer does this, distributors drop the product.

I agree that eventually, HP should give up and just sell the product
direct at a lower markup, but it's not clear that they have hit this
point yet.

Ron Parr

Jim Toenail said:

I have a crazy idea! When those competing vendors lose confidence in
their ability to sell an HP product, HP could support that product by
selling supplies directly to the public AT A REASONABLE MARK-UP instead
of their usual ultra-high prices!!! Come on, HP, you're a big
boy--behave responsibly to those folks who trusted you and bought your
products!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim Toenail said:

Chris,
When I bought my Photosmart printer last summer, I was buying HP 4x6
Photosmart paper for a little more than 4 dollars a box. Presumably, the
retailer I was buying it from was making a profit, and so was HP. Now
that no one else seems to be selling this item, why is it that HP feels
it has to sell it for 7 dollars a box?

I can understand "making money with consumables" as you put it, but I
can't understand why the folks at HP seem to be gouging the people who
put their in them.

If HP had been selling this item to Buy.com and the others for 2, 3 or 4
dollars a box, why are they jacking the price up to 7 dollars for you and
me, especially now that no one else is selling this stuff? Don't they see
how they're letting us down?

Toenail is not happy.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the real issue is the price that HP charged last
summer (for a consumer to buy directly from them). If the (HP) price
then was the same as the (HP) price now, then I don't see how you
can indict HP for "price gouging".

If your other vendors have dropped the supplies, then your complaint
should be with the other vendors. If HP has in fact raised their price
substantially since last summer (I doubt it) then you have a legitimate
complaint.

That's the way I see it.

Yes, I see it very differently.

If you're talking about "legally" speaking, or "free market forces," or does HP have a "right" to charge what it wants for its products, then you'll get no argument from me. Of course, HP can do what it wants. (Legally, HP can stop selling printer supplies and instead open donut shops.)

But the fact is when I researched my photo printer purchase last summer, I considered the cost of buying supplies for the printer. $4 dollars for 20-pictures seemed reasonable. $7 did not.

I also considered the HP "brand" as "trustworthy." I never suspected that HP would stop selling the printer and stand idly by as retailers stopped stocking supplies for it. You can't blame the retailers--why should they stock supplies for a discontinued printer? HP, on the other hand, should consider its good name as it charges my credit card 7 dollars for those 20-pieces of paper. Its name is now mud as far as I'm concerned. "Trustworthy?" Give me a break!

Here's the long and short: Brands you can trust support the products they sell. They don't say, "Hey, wow, no one else is selling these supplies now, so it's not our fault that people are forced to buy them from us at nearly twice what they used to pay."

Later, HP. Hello, Epson.

Dave Schambach said:

It seems to me that the real issue is the price that HP charged last
summer (for a consumer to buy directly from them). If the (HP) price
then was the same as the (HP) price now, then I don't see how you
can indict HP for "price gouging".

If your other vendors have dropped the supplies, then your complaint
should be with the other vendors. If HP has in fact raised their price
substantially since last summer (I doubt it) then you have a legitimate
complaint.

That's the way I see it.

Click to expand...

As I indicated in my previous message, it is unlikely that HP can lower the price on these supplies because doing so would prompt the few retailers who still carry the supplies to drop them.

You're asking HP to stab its distributors in the back. This is a lot to task of any company.

To convince me that HP is acting disreputably, you'd need to show me that HP is selling the paper to their distributors for more now than in the past. Even then, you'd need to take into account that with dwindling demand, HP may no longer enjoy the same economies of scale that they once did, leading to higher marginal costs.

Ron Parr

Jim Toenail said:

If you're talking about "legally" speaking, or "free market forces," or
does HP have a "right" to charge what it wants for its products, then
you'll get no argument from me. Of course, HP can do what it wants.
(Legally, HP can stop selling printer supplies and instead open donut
shops.)

But the fact is when I researched my photo printer purchase last summer,
I considered the cost of buying supplies for the printer. $4 dollars for
20-pictures seemed reasonable. $7 did not.

I also considered the HP "brand" as "trustworthy." I never suspected
that HP would stop selling the printer and stand idly by as retailers
stopped stocking supplies for it. You can't blame the retailers--why
should they stock supplies for a discontinued printer? HP, on the other
hand, should consider its good name as it charges my credit card 7
dollars for those 20-pieces of paper. Its name is now mud as far as I'm
concerned. "Trustworthy?" Give me a break!

Here's the long and short: Brands you can trust support the products they
sell. They don't say, "Hey, wow, no one else is selling these supplies
now, so it's not our fault that people are forced to buy them from us at
nearly twice what they used to pay."

Later, HP. Hello, Epson.

Dave Schambach said:

It seems to me that the real issue is the price that HP charged last
summer (for a consumer to buy directly from them). If the (HP) price
then was the same as the (HP) price now, then I don't see how you
can indict HP for "price gouging".

If your other vendors have dropped the supplies, then your complaint
should be with the other vendors. If HP has in fact raised their price
substantially since last summer (I doubt it) then you have a legitimate
complaint.

That's the way I see it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim Toenail said:

Yes, I see it very differently.

If you're talking about "legally" speaking, or "free market forces," or
does HP have a "right" to charge what it wants for its products, then
you'll get no argument from me. Of course, HP can do what it wants.
(Legally, HP can stop selling printer supplies and instead open donut
shops.)

Click to expand...

Legally, they can do whatever turns them on. Ethically, if they have raised
the price of the suppies substantially of the last several months, they are
probably making a mistake. It certainly won't win them any friends among
those that bought the "old" PhotoSmart recently.

Member said:

But the fact is when I researched my photo printer purchase last summer,
I considered the cost of buying supplies for the printer. $4 dollars for
20-pictures seemed reasonable. $7 did not.
I also considered the HP "brand" as "trustworthy." I never suspected
that HP would stop selling the printer and stand idly by as retailers
stopped stocking supplies for it. You can't blame the retailers--why
should they stock supplies for a discontinued printer? HP, on the other
hand, should consider its good name as it charges my credit card 7
dollars for those 20-pieces of paper. Its name is now mud as far as I'm
concerned. "Trustworthy?" Give me a break!

Click to expand...

I also was in the market for a new photo printer last summer. But I
guess I did my homework better than you did yours. I looked at and
seriously considered the "old" PhotoSmart. I was able to find out that
it was being discontinued and replaced. I opted to wait (seemingly
forever) for the P1000/P1100 to become available. BTW, you still
haven't told us what HP was seeling the supplies (direct to consumers)
for last summer. Has that price actually increased? If so, how much?

Member said:

Here's the long and short: Brands you can trust support the products they
sell. They don't say, "Hey, wow, no one else is selling these supplies
now, so it's not our fault that people are forced to buy them from us at
nearly twice what they used to pay."

Later, HP. Hello, Epson.

Click to expand...

That's what makes the world go 'round!

Dave

Jim, don't be so down on yourself. A lot of us bought those printers. I just bought one of the NEW PhotoSmart printers and love it.

Seriously, try out the new series of papers from HP. They work just fine with the old model. I see very little if any difference and they dry faster.

Jim Toenail said:

You buy the Photosmart printer for $149. You think, wow, great price for
a great printer, right? The only down side is the fact that it only
performs well with that special proprietary paper from HP. You muse, "Gee
I hope it's always available for a reasonable price. It should be.
Afterall, HP is a brand you can trust, right?"

A few months later very few outfits carry the Photosmart paper, and, in
its scarcity, it's now priced at a premium. So, here I am thinking, will
I buy an HP next time round? I seriously doubt it. From all I've read,
Epson and the others all make printers that work well with a variety of
papers, and those papers are all readily available. Me--I've got this
Edsel that only takes leaded gas, and no one seems to sell leaded gas any
more!
--
Jim

Click to expand...

I'm trying to decide if you really want paper for your printer or
just want to complain about HP. One of the first replies to your
original post suggested that the new Premium Plus papers work just
fine in the "old" PhotoSmart printer, giving you a source of paper which
should end the bitching.

Jim

Jim Toenail said:

If you're talking about "legally" speaking, or "free market forces," or
does HP have a "right" to charge what it wants for its products, then
you'll get no argument from me. Of course, HP can do what it wants.
(Legally, HP can stop selling printer supplies and instead open donut
shops.)

But the fact is when I researched my photo printer purchase last summer,
I considered the cost of buying supplies for the printer. $4 dollars for
20-pictures seemed reasonable. $7 did not.

I also considered the HP "brand" as "trustworthy." I never suspected
that HP would stop selling the printer and stand idly by as retailers
stopped stocking supplies for it. You can't blame the retailers--why
should they stock supplies for a discontinued printer? HP, on the other
hand, should consider its good name as it charges my credit card 7
dollars for those 20-pieces of paper. Its name is now mud as far as I'm
concerned. "Trustworthy?" Give me a break!

Here's the long and short: Brands you can trust support the products they
sell. They don't say, "Hey, wow, no one else is selling these supplies
now, so it's not our fault that people are forced to buy them from us at
nearly twice what they used to pay."

Later, HP. Hello, Epson.

Dave Schambach said:

It seems to me that the real issue is the price that HP charged last
summer (for a consumer to buy directly from them). If the (HP) price
then was the same as the (HP) price now, then I don't see how you
can indict HP for "price gouging".

If your other vendors have dropped the supplies, then your complaint
should be with the other vendors. If HP has in fact raised their price
substantially since last summer (I doubt it) then you have a legitimate
complaint.

That's the way I see it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I will have to take exception to Tom's claim that the new paper works as good as the old paper in the "old Photosmart". It just ain't so....I have printed side by side test and the results produced on the original paper are better. Blacks just do not seem to come out as even on the new stuff (Premium Plus). The old glossy paper will probably be discontinued soon. The matte is no longer available from HP.I

I like the old model printer and feel that HP shouid continue to make the paper available at reasonable prices...like it going to be an economic hardship on HP to offer a couple of photo papers.

However, there is hope for owners of the old model. ilford makes an ink jet paper

which I have been told produces better prints that the any of HP's paper. I have ordered both matte & glossy paper and will know for sure in a few days.

It should also be noted that the old model DOES produce better results that the new 1000/1100 models. The deal of the year: QVC is now selling the old model for $99.....and that includes cartridges etc. I bought one for a spare.

Tom said:

Jim Toenail said:

You buy the Photosmart printer for $149. You think, wow, great price for
a great printer, right? The only down side is the fact that it only
performs well with that special proprietary paper from HP. You muse, "Gee
I hope it's always available for a reasonable price. It should be.
Afterall, HP is a brand you can trust, right?"

A few months later very few outfits carry the Photosmart paper, and, in
its scarcity, it's now priced at a premium. So, here I am thinking, will
I buy an HP next time round? I seriously doubt it. From all I've read,
Epson and the others all make printers that work well with a variety of
papers, and those papers are all readily available. Me--I've got this
Edsel that only takes leaded gas, and no one seems to sell leaded gas any
more!
--
Jim

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bob said:

It should also be noted that the old model DOES produce better results
that the new 1000/1100 models. The deal of the year: QVC is now selling
the old model for $99.....and that includes cartridges etc. I bought one
for a spare.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Go to the digital darkroom site:

http://come.to/digitaldarkroom

and click on the composite comparison scan between the old Photosmart and the new one. Granted, it's only one scan and we don't know the methods used by the author, but the new PhotoSmart looks much better to me.

Ron Parr

Yes, I had seen that and there is no doubt that a blowup of the two prints reveal significantly higher dpi with the newer model. But my 812 probably has comparable dpi to the 1000.....so what does that really prove. My eyes ( with no magnification) prefer the prints from the old model AND 6 colors.

Check out how the old model did in Mike Chaney's Mega Printer Review

http://www.charm.net

Granted, they used a highly subjective method to rate the various printers.
They showed the photos to real people and asked which pictures they liked
best....imagine that!

Ron Parr said:

bob said:

It should also be noted that the old model DOES produce better results
that the new 1000/1100 models. The deal of the year: QVC is now selling
the old model for $99.....and that includes cartridges etc. I bought one
for a spare.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Go to the digital darkroom site:

http://come.to/digitaldarkroom

and click on the composite comparison scan between the old Photosmart and
the new one. Granted, it's only one scan and we don't know the methods
used by the author, but the new PhotoSmart looks much better to me.

Ron Parr

Click to expand...

bob said:

Yes, I had seen that and there is no doubt that a blowup of the two
prints reveal significantly higher dpi with the newer model. But my 812
probably has comparable dpi to the 1000.....so what does that really
prove.

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth (and I'll be the first to admit that this isn't as much as it would seem), the 970/P1000/P1100 have much higher dpi than your 812. The 812 is 300-600 dpi, while the newer models are 1200-2400 dpi.

Member said:

My eyes ( with no magnification) prefer the prints from the old
model AND 6 colors.

Click to expand...

That's a fair position. Have you compared a range of photos from both printers?

Member said:

Check out how the old model did in Mike Chaney's Mega Printer Review

http://www.charm.net

Granted, they used a highly subjective method to rate the various printers.
They showed the photos to real people and asked which pictures they liked
best....imagine that!

Click to expand...

I'd like to check this out, but I can't find Chaney's page on the list of users hosted on that site. Could you give a more specific URL?

Thanks,
Ron

bob said:

I will have to take exception to Tom's claim that the new paper works as
good as the old paper in the "old Photosmart". It just ain't so....I have
printed side by side test and the results produced on the original paper
are better. Blacks just do not seem to come out as even on the new stuff
(Premium Plus).

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Bob here. I've used a variety of different papers with the old HP Photosmart and the old paper just gives the best results- especially with large areas of black.

Member said:

I like the old model printer and feel that HP shouid continue to make the
paper available at reasonable prices...like it going to be an economic
hardship on HP to offer a couple of photo papers.

Click to expand...

Agreed again. It's the stuff that makes that printer "work".

Member said:

However, there is hope for owners of the old model. ilford makes an ink
jet paper
which I have been told produces better prints that the any of HP's paper.
I have ordered both matte & glossy paper and will know for sure in a few
days.

Click to expand...

Can't wait to hear your results....

Member said:

It should also be noted that the old model DOES produce better results
that the new 1000/1100 models.

Click to expand...

Again I have to agree with Bob. I've done multiple prints on both printers (old HP glossy photo paper and HP Premium paper), and to me the old Photosmart, with it's six colors just does a better job than the new HP with its CMYK Advanced Layering(IMHO). However, that being said I've also compared both to my Epson 1200 and I'll take the Epson over both. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all...

Paul

OK, the 1000 has much more dpi than the 812...if everything is printed at max...
and I did say probably.

As far as range of photos....I have seen enough to convince me to keep my $4oo or buy the new Epison....and I'm an HP fan!

Try this:

http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/imaging/index.html

Ron Parr said:

bob said:

Yes, I had seen that and there is no doubt that a blowup of the two
prints reveal significantly higher dpi with the newer model. But my 812
probably has comparable dpi to the 1000.....so what does that really
prove.

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth (and I'll be the first to admit that this isn't
as much as it would seem), the 970/P1000/P1100 have much higher dpi than
your 812. The 812 is 300-600 dpi, while the newer models are 1200-2400
dpi.

Member said:

My eyes ( with no magnification) prefer the prints from the old
model AND 6 colors.

Click to expand...

That's a fair position. Have you compared a range of photos from both
printers?

Member said:

Check out how the old model did in Mike Chaney's Mega Printer Review

http://www.charm.net

Granted, they used a highly subjective method to rate the various printers.
They showed the photos to real people and asked which pictures they liked
best....imagine that!

Click to expand...

I'd like to check this out, but I can't find Chaney's page on the list of
users hosted on that site. Could you give a more specific URL?

Thanks,
Ron

Click to expand...