Official HP toner not official enough after dodgy update, say users
- Reference: 1741703220
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/03/11/hp_firmware_printer_toner/
- Source link:
Reports are growing on the printer maker's online community pages and elsewhere about the machines throwing an "error code 11".
One user on X directed a [1]tweet at the company, complaining: "M234dw – Apparently the most recent firmware update that occurred on 3/4/25 (date code 20250209) has made it so that genuine HP toner cartridges are not recognized resulting in an error 11. Please provide a link to the previous firmware version so that I can use my printer."
[2]
A customer on HP's site [3]reported : "I installed this toner cartridge about a month ago, with no issues. But today suddenly an error code 11 popped up which means the printer doesn't accept/recognize the cartridge any more. I have been unable to fix it."
[4]
[5]
Another [6]posted : "Ran into the same issue – guessing some fireware [sic] broke the printer to be honest. Insanely frustrating because it's my small business printer and just stopped working out of nowhere and I even replaced the tone [sic] which was a $60 expense ... I'm on firmware 20250209, have done a hard reset, and replaced the toner and it keeps throwing Error 11."
HP issued firmware update 20250209 on March 4 for the LaserJet MFP M232-M237 Printer series of multi-function devices. This type of MFD is aimed squarely at smaller companies, and can thus cause a real headache if it stops working for any reason.
[7]Oh Brother. Printer giant denies dirty toner tricks as users cry foul
[8]Profit slide at HP can only mean one thing: Hammer time
[9]HP CEO pay for 2024 = 261,658 toner cartridges
[10]HP secures $50M CHIPS Act boost to adapt inkjet tech for life sciences
We asked HP if there is a fix, and an HP PR told The Reg :
"We are aware of a firmware issue affecting a limited number of HP LaserJet 200 Series devices and our team is actively working on a solution." It directs customers affected by this problem to [11]contact its support team online.
[12]
The company obviously prefers customers to seek help via the web, as it had tried to introduce a [13]minimum wait time of 15 minutes for anyone calling up its telephone-based support team, as The Register revealed last month.
HP was already notorious because of a firmware update that prevented owners of its inkjet printers from using [14]consumables supplied by any other vendor . This sparked a class action lawsuit from owners, who argued that they had [15]never entered into any contractual agreement to buy only HP-branded ink.
Around the same time, the company CEO [16]admitted its long-term objective is "to make printing a subscription," and said if a customer HP has invested in "doesn't print enough or doesn't use our supplies, it's a bad investment."
[17]
Last week, Japanese vendor Brother was accused of using similar tactics, updating its printer firmware to [18]block or degrade the printing experience if owners use third-party toner. However, the firm strongly denied these claims, and told The Register that its updates are "designed to enhance functionality and security, not limit consumer choice." ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://x.com/steveg1112/status/1898782605845070005
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z9BsMPUkJZjo34YU3Dp_4AAAAVA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printing-Errors-or-Lights-Stuck-Print-Jobs/Error-Code-11/td-p/9333546
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9BsMPUkJZjo34YU3Dp_4AAAAVA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9BsMPUkJZjo34YU3Dp_4AAAAVA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printing-Errors-or-Lights-Stuck-Print-Jobs/Laserjet-m234DW-Error-11/td-p/9332462Here
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/06/brother_firmware_update_toner/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/28/hp_cuts_jobs_as_profits_slide/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/hp_ceo_pay_for_2024/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/28/hp_chips_act_cash/
[11] https://support.hp.com/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9BsMPUkJZjo34YU3Dp_4AAAAVA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/21/hp_ditches_15_minute_wait_time_call_centers/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/09/hp_class_action_ink/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/11/hp_inc_ink_filing/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/19/hps_ceo_spells_it_out/
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9BsMPUkJZjo34YU3Dp_4AAAAVA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/06/brother_firmware_update_toner/
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
if a customer HP has invested in
WTF? HP invested in customers?
How about going back to decent, robust products? Remember, when the customers could invest in HP for something they could rely on?
Talk about a company going arse about face.
Re: if a customer HP has invested in
How about going back to decent, robust products?
I get the impression that HP in its current incarnation would rather develop a paper drawer that breaks your fingers if you don't buy your minimum monthly supply.
Cry havok
and unleash the attack attorneys of war. Hunt them down. Remove their assets. Hound them out of business.
HP doesn't want our business.
I think we need to give them what they want.
I remember when HP was a good company
Gather round children and let me tell you a story of when HP printers were great printers and it was a solid business choice to buy them as they just worked.
But the youngest spoke up and said "Nah, get away with you old man, pull the other one its got bells on, HP is a right dodgy company, forcing people into subscriptions, not letting you use any ink you fancy, even if their ink costs more per gram than Columbia's finest marching powder".
I told the youngest oik, "No, it's true, the old HP 1 printers were dead good so long as you had the new font cartridge and you could even print Elvish for fun on them".
The rest of the kids started laughing and saying how my memory must be playing up and that I was talking a load of old crap.
I sighed, turned away and rummaged in the bottom of my drawer and pulled out my 1984 thesis on "Garbage Collection in Lisp Interpreters" printed on an HP 1 printer and showed it to them.
They laughed at me and danced away into the night.
Bastards!
Re: I remember when HP was a good company
I too remember the days when folks swore by HP products. Nowadays folks just swear AT them.
Can't understand why anyone would buy HP printers nowadays?
Re: I remember when HP was a good company
I remember that time too.
I have an HP LaserJet 1320 duplex that's still working fine after 21 years, now with a third party toner cartridge in it.
I dread the day when it fails. What manufacturers are recommended nowadays?
Workaround
If you're getting error code 11 on an HP printer and you have a Genuine HP ink/toner cartridge installed ... just wait for 15 minutes!
Investment?
Home printers as an example. Start at £38.99 (2810e No wireless) and £58 (6120e wireless).
The quote from the article "if a customer HP has invested in doesn't print enough or doesn't use our supplies, it's a bad investment.".
What exactly have they invested? If they are selling them under cost price it must be pennies. Are they trying to say they have done people a favour by selling them a printer? In the olden days when you could pick up a printer for like £30 or even £20 I might agree and say yeah you want some return but even then it wasn't much.
I get it. They are talking about the bottom line for the shareholders who want maximum returns on every single printer sold. Tough shit. That's how you lose customers.
Creating firmware updates you haven't even tested on your own ink that bork printers loses you customers but hey I bet it stopped brand-x ink working.
How did this happen? Back in the day a company would load the firmware onto an actual device and check it. I'm guessing these days it's all AI and automated emulation for reduced costs and staff. Oh well.
Criminal Offence under subsection 3?
Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
(b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
(c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
(2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or
(d)to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.
(3)This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act will do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above.
(4)The intention referred to in subsection (2) above, or the recklessness referred to in subsection (3) above, need not relate to—
(a)any particular computer;
(b)any particular program or data; or
(c)a program or data of any particular kind.
(5)In this section—
(a)a reference to doing an act includes a reference to causing an act to be done;
(b)“act” includes a series of acts;
(c)a reference to impairing, preventing or hindering something includes a reference to doing so temporarily.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine or to both.