What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 29 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 4.1.4 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.1.4, updated 2026-09-03.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Aggressive ad load
Constant ads. Almost a scam — Really bad app. Not from hp
Too many ads — I can't even connect my new printer because of the amount of ads! Anytime I push any button I get two ads and sent back to where I started. The app was not like this before
You can’t print without the horrible app — The app absolutely bombard you with unstoppable ads, and pop-up prompts. Absolute slot would highly recommend trying a different printer out..
Hard to cancel
Tried to cancel keep getting charged — No way to cancel
Robbers — Tricks into paying 1 year, which you can’t cancel before 1y, unless you contact apple via their form
Worst — Worst won’t let me cancel subscription
Paywall blocks the basics
Pay to play — App used to be great and was free with the printer now you have to subscribe to use the printer functions as originally advertised as standard functions
It should be free — I don’t like that u have to pay for everything
Subscription for a printer is ridiculous — Why on earth do you need to pay for a subscription to do something as simple as connecting your printer to WiFi. Whoever thought of this should be fired
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.