In Firefox, it used to show the punycode when clicked on the lock icon. Now I just checked one such domain(https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com/) and it didn't show the punycode until I clicked the lock icon > Connection Secure > More Information > View certificate button. I didn't know that the behavior was changed... I would have clicked the lock icon, saw `www.аррӏе.com` and would have believed I was visiting apple.com. I think it should not take more than one click to see the punycode, let alone a couple of clicks and opening a new dialog box.
It is possible to opt-out of Google's Wi-Fi network location mapping by appending "_nomap" to SSID[1], I'm not sure if it works with other providers. Although I think this should have been opt-in instead of opt-out, the least we deserve is a standard, guaranteed way to universally opt-out.
Why it's always us who have to do the work to avoid being harassed by google? If I don't want to have my site harvested for snippets I have to add a no-snippet tag. If I don't want my WiFi data harvested I have to append an ugly nomap to my SSID. What about being it opt-in, as you said? I'm tired of doing Google's dirty work...
By the way, quoting from the article:
> "Specifically, this approach helps protect against others opting out your access point without your permission."
Oh, thank you for your kindness, Google. Yes, the idea of another person denying me the joy of having my WiFi data harvested by you is terrifying. Thanks, Google. You really know how to be helpful...
Especially because Google mapping your WiFi comes with real downsides for you. Two years ago a random stranger rung my doorbell and told me their Android phone got stolen and according to Find My Device, the device was inside my house and even showed it to me live. I told them to wait on the street and checked the roof and yard, but didn't find the device. I simply told them I can't help further and they luckily took it well, thanked me and left. Imagine how easily such a situation can get ugly though. A day or so later i realized that my Wifi router happens to be at an oddly open corner of my house, facing the backyard, and visible for much further than you'd expect since there are also no other structures for quite a distance. I bet his phone was somewhere there but saw my WiFi and so it erroneously located itself in my house. Thanks Google!
This isn't relevant - we're not talking about building a map of SSID to location, we're talking about using SSIDs to infer relationships between people; the SSIDs don't even have to be in any kind of location DB for that, what allowed Facebook to infer this relationship is that both the author's and their therapist's device regularly saw the same SSIDs.
Not if they just made the site return a 404/500 just to his IPs, which any half-decent adversary would do. The "play dead" strategy works great with these kind of vigilantes.
We're employed similar tactics against DDoSers at work. Start returning 500s or just tarpit their requests, they think the site is down and they go home.
Do they loss access to their domain name as well if their TOS is violated? From their website it seems like they offer first year domain registration for free, tied to their account. It seems to fragile if the domain name goes with the suspended account.
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...
Coursera has a financial aid program for this, and it is easy to avail if one is a student from developing countries or low income households. edX has a similar program as well, where the price will get reduced to around 1/10th of original cost. In Coursera, the price is completely discounted and you can do the course for free.
See: https://learner.coursera.help/hc/en-us/articles/209819033-Ap...
I just hope firefox doesn't follow this trend. It was too difficult for me to adjust to their "one click select all" address bar that I now use ctrl + L for address bar interactions.
