The title is trolling. The press release describes a service where people can subscribe to Wired (and other publications) and have them printed in home rather than receive them by mail.

At first brush I agree that this sounds like a terrible idea, but it isn't what the headline makes it out to be.

I didn't intend for the title to be trolling. When I first read this I couldn't believe it was a genuine press release. The idea of HP launching a "printing magazines at home" and then send you ink to do it on a subscription basis seems absurd to me.

It seems absurd to you, but I know several people who will be very excited about this. They don't read on their computer; they print web pages and carry them around in a folder to read later. Strange to you and I, but exactly what some people want.

I'm not sure I understand - the submission title makes it seem like this is some kind of mandatory thing, but the article makes it sound like it's an optional service for Conde Nast subscribers?

That is possibly the worst idea I've heard this week... On top of the fact that it uses expensive ink, just imagine the environmental cost of all that wasted paper...

Well if the alternative is to get it delievered on paper then this may very well be the most environmentally sound way to go.

So, let me make sure I get this straight...

In a world where almost everyone is trying to go paperless...

And where ink is ridiculously expensive...

And in a world where damn near anything can be had online...

You want to (opt-in, thank gawd) automatically print something that could be read online, using up paper and expensive ink that isn't yours?

More surprising, is that someone suggested this at a meeting, and nobody had the balls to point out the problems with this plan.

Its sounds like a spectacularly stupid idea, but it appears to be opt-in, so the title is pretty misleading here.

This is so ridiculous that looks like a The Onion article. Actually, wait, it almost is:

New Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'I'm Thinking Printers'

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-apple-ceo-tim-cook-im-t...

Only in the parallel universe of corporate press releases do statements like these make sense:

-"As the printer evolves into a content hub in homes and offices, HP Instant Ink allows additional content pages to flow – with savings and convenience for the user"

-"“This project is one of the many ways Condé Nast is using emerging technology to engage consumers,” said Julie Michalowski, senior vice president, Consumer Business Development, Condé Nast. “With this new HP pilot program, consumers will be able to have their favorite Condé Nast content at their fingertips.”"

Since when is printing on paper an emerging technology? Before terminals included CRTs for display, you could print on green-bar paper. Isn't the paperless office supposed to be the future? Well ... I guess at least Gutenberg would be impressed!

like a managed fax machine?

Morally bankrupt.

I disagree that the title is trolling. The program itself is little more than another subscription service designed not only to lock the customer into paying for the information on a recurring basis, but also paying for the supplies, hardware and software by which to consume the information, again on a subscription basis. It's designed to sell more [overpriced] ink when printing less is becoming the norm, if not unnecessary.

Now, I'm not against doing business, but this type of service is aimed squarely at people who routinely find themselves locked into similar services that provide little or no value to the consumer. It's a tried and true business model and it works for those who work hard at it, but it's just scouring the bottom looking for the uninformed consumer. An iPad with subscriptions would be cheaper.

I like reading on deadtree, but this eliminates economies of scale with printing. This is a failed idea already.

Can it also print my email and place it in envelopes for me?