In this case, there does exist a comparable product for the technically-literate, price insensitive market. It’s sold side-by-side with the “subscription supported” product, by the same manufacturer.
I wouldn’t call their marketing “clear”, which inevitably leads most consumers to ask “why would I pay more for the same thing?”, but it’s also unfair to say that HP is turning their entire product line into a bait-and-switch gambit (which is the general subtext of this whole conversation).
HP is running a business. Ink and toner are great long-term revenue streams, but they aren’t guaranteed. So HP sells one SKU that (probably) covers the cost of production, and hopes that they get some fraction of that long tail (if only in brand familiarity/loyalty), and because the printer market is so driven by negative margin hardware, they have a second SKU for a subsidized printer with an implicit contract, guaranteeing ink revenues for longer.
Could they do a better job of clarifying the options? Absolutely.
Is what they’re doing “shady”, “dirty”, or borderline illegal? Probably not.
Could a lot of this confusion be cleared up by just saying it’s a subsidized purchase? I expect you’d have to ask the wireless telcos about that…
Case in point:
Subscription supported. Requires internet, app + account, first party toner. Costs $120 at time of writing, with a bonus 6 month supply of toner free. https://smile.amazon.com/HP-LaserJet-M234dwe-Wireless-6GW99E...
Equivalent hardware. No internet or account required. (Unclear on first party toner req.) Costs $150 more. https://smile.amazon.com/HP-LaserJet-M234dwe-Wireless-6GW99E...
I wouldn’t call their marketing “clear”, which inevitably leads most consumers to ask “why would I pay more for the same thing?”, but it’s also unfair to say that HP is turning their entire product line into a bait-and-switch gambit (which is the general subtext of this whole conversation).
HP is running a business. Ink and toner are great long-term revenue streams, but they aren’t guaranteed. So HP sells one SKU that (probably) covers the cost of production, and hopes that they get some fraction of that long tail (if only in brand familiarity/loyalty), and because the printer market is so driven by negative margin hardware, they have a second SKU for a subsidized printer with an implicit contract, guaranteeing ink revenues for longer.
Could they do a better job of clarifying the options? Absolutely.
Is what they’re doing “shady”, “dirty”, or borderline illegal? Probably not.
Could a lot of this confusion be cleared up by just saying it’s a subsidized purchase? I expect you’d have to ask the wireless telcos about that…