If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
Mark² wrote:
frederick wrote: ASAAR wrote: NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced. Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported. I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may have been announced too late to make it into these papers. It is good news. I wonder who is making the printers for Kodak? Assuming that Canon/Epson/HP wouldn't want to play the game, perhaps Brother or Lexmark? Epson have considerable room to move. US price of their consumables is approximately 50% higher than Japan, and European customers pay more than double. Epson advertise their printers (identical to US/European models, but with different model names/numbers) with JBMIA standard photo yield data indicating prices more consistent with Kodak's new claims than the expected $0.30 or more in the US market. I doubt it's Lexmark. I don't know of any pigment inks by them, and they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their lives. If it pushes ink prices downward, then they'll have accomplished something. But I think HP has so attached their company to "free" printers and a mint for the ink, that it won't be easy for them to respond so quickly. ASSAR missed the point. The comparison shouldn't be against on-line printers. The comparison should be against home-printing alternatives. In that contest, the Kodak figures are FAR cheaper. But that's not the only breakthrough. The other is that they're offering PIGMENT INKS at that price, which is a real breakthrough. Yes - I do note that. There are significant issues with pigment inks and thermal head inkjets for photo printing, that HP have worked to overcome. If Kodak have overcome those problems at a consumer friendly price, then it is remarkable. When Kodak says they are of equal quality to their own lab prints, that is a significant statement. Kodak lab prints (the ones that most punters get at the local lab) are nothing special, either in print life or quality. IMO they lag well behind Fuji. HP are entering the lab print market with their pigment ink technology inkjets. Epson are already in the market through a joint venture with Noritsu. Wet-process printing will eventually go the way of film. And regarding "high-priced printers and cheap ink"...we're NOT talking expensive printers here. The three models range from $150USD to $300. Hardly breaking the bank, and actually less than competing models from HP that use inferior inks. It's a big deal, and I'm happy someone is bucking HP &Co.'s scam of selling ink at the price of titanium. It's not just been HP. It's public knowledge that they made $4.5 billion from ink and toner sales last year - 80% of HP total profit. Kodak's move may at least act as a wake-up call to Epson and Canon - to sell consumables at the prices they do in Japan (or better) to the rest of us. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
ASAAR wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even pointer_outer wrote: ASSAR missed the point. The comparison shouldn't be against on-line printers. There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink. But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed? Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:58:24 +1300, frederick wrote:
When Kodak says they are of equal quality to their own lab prints, that is a significant statement. Kodak lab prints (the ones that most punters get at the local lab) are nothing special, either in print life or quality. IMO they lag well behind Fuji. HP are entering the lab print market with their pigment ink technology inkjets. Epson are already in the market through a joint venture with Noritsu. Wet-process printing will eventually go the way of film. I hope that the result of the joint venture hasn't appeared yet. A local Rite-Aid replaced their photo-lab equipment a month or two ago. I didn't notice which one it is was, but it used Kodak terminals for users to select and send their pictures, and produced prints using Kodak paper. The new machines are Noritsu, and the no-name paper they use is horrible. The results look no better, but the big problem is that it's *very* difficult peeling one print off another, making it a real chore looking through a deck of prints. Checking it a week later and the prints still cling rather than slide. Do you think that this Rite-Aid may be using sub-standard paper or something else may be responsible? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote:
There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink. But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed? Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous. I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.) for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as Kodak claims these new printers can do? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:56 +1300, frederick wrote: There was no point to miss. I didn't editorialize, but just repeated what was said by the "Marketplace" reporter. I do have doubts about the accuracy of the 4x6 price comparison, since unlike the ink kit for Epson's little printer, which allows total costs to be easily understood, Kodak's kit doesn't include any paper, or I should more accurately say that there is no kit. You just buy ink. But since as you said, the new Kodak printers supposedly now use pigment based ink, will this ink have also been formulated to work best with existing Kodak print paper which presumably was designed for dye based ink? Or was that a point that *you* missed? Some of Kodak's pro papers work well with pigment printers. Their consumer papers (Ultima and down) are completely disastrous. I'll have to check local stores (Staples, CC, BB, CompUSA, etc.) for the availability of the pro papers. I assume that B&H would have them, but most people would probably just pick up whatever's cheap. I recall seeing some name brand paper in Staples recently that made no mention of whether it was suitable for dye or pigment based ink, but just gave a rating similar to good, better, best, and a brief description, such as "use this paper for longer life". I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as Kodak claims these new printers can do? No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and totally unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly photos that scratch like instant lottery cards. The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated, probably made by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I doubt that you could buy a 6x4. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:58:24 +1300, frederick wrote: When Kodak says they are of equal quality to their own lab prints, that is a significant statement. Kodak lab prints (the ones that most punters get at the local lab) are nothing special, either in print life or quality. IMO they lag well behind Fuji. HP are entering the lab print market with their pigment ink technology inkjets. Epson are already in the market through a joint venture with Noritsu. Wet-process printing will eventually go the way of film. I hope that the result of the joint venture hasn't appeared yet. A local Rite-Aid replaced their photo-lab equipment a month or two ago. I didn't notice which one it is was, but it used Kodak terminals for users to select and send their pictures, and produced prints using Kodak paper. The new machines are Noritsu, and the no-name paper they use is horrible. The results look no better, but the big problem is that it's *very* difficult peeling one print off another, making it a real chore looking through a deck of prints. Checking it a week later and the prints still cling rather than slide. Do you think that this Rite-Aid may be using sub-standard paper or something else may be responsible? I doubt that would be from an epson / noritsu "dry" minilab. Noritsu make mainly wet-process machines. I can only imagine that the dry minilab potential market was low(er) volume kiosks. But from an HP press release I read, it sounded like they were going to hit the market big time - investing (hundreds of?) millions. Then again, like most press releases it would have come from the marketing dept. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, Mark² wrote:
frederick wrote: ASAAR wrote: NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced. Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported. I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may have been announced too late to make it into these papers. It is good news. I wonder who is making the printers for Kodak? Assuming that Canon/Epson/HP wouldn't want to play the game, perhaps Brother or Lexmark? Epson have considerable room to move. US price of their consumables is approximately 50% higher than Japan, and European customers pay more than double. Epson advertise their printers (identical to US/European models, but with different model names/numbers) with JBMIA standard photo yield data indicating prices more consistent with Kodak's new claims than the expected $0.30 or more in the US market. I doubt it's Lexmark. I don't know of any pigment inks by them, and they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their lives. Rather a sweeping statement. I previously worked with a Lexmark laser printer that was very solid and dependable and one of the faster printers in the world. Blew the doors off the very expensive HP network printer we also had. If it pushes ink prices downward, then they'll have accomplished something. But I think HP has so attached their company to "free" printers and a mint for the ink, that it won't be easy for them to respond so quickly. ASSAR missed the point. The comparison shouldn't be against on-line printers. The comparison should be against home-printing alternatives. In that contest, the Kodak figures are FAR cheaper. But that's not the only breakthrough. The other is that they're offering PIGMENT INKS at that price, which is a real breakthrough. When Kodak says they are of equal quality to their own lab prints, that is a significant statement. And regarding "high-priced printers and cheap ink"...we're NOT talking expensive printers here. The three models range from $150USD to $300. Hardly breaking the bank, and actually less than competing models from HP that use inferior inks. It's a big deal, and I'm happy someone is bucking HP &Co.'s scam of selling ink at the price of titanium. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
Ron Hunter wrote:
ASAAR wrote: NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced. Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported. I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may have been announced too late to make it into these papers. Saw it in the local paper today. The interesting aspect is that prices for the cartridges, $9.99 for black and $14.95 for color. Both inks are 'lifetime' type inks. The printers, however, are somewhat more expensive, allowing them to make a profit on the printer, and sell the cartridges for less profit. I've always maintained that a company should decide what business it is in and then do *that* business. It has been clear that most printer manufacturers were in fact hardware companies. Getting involved in making their profit on the ink was a bit of a loser for most of them. The initial craze of "print it at home" has died *because* it turned out to be too expensive. So fewer and fewer people are buying printers these days. The old ones die and they just have their printing done commercially. I think Kodak is on to something. -- --- Paul J. Gans |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:24:44 +1300, frederick wrote:
I'm not familiar with Kodak's pro paper. If you are, do you think it's possible to use it produce 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents each, as Kodak claims these new printers can do? No. Kodaks consumer paper packs that I've seen say "Suitable for all inkjet printers", but it is swellable-polymer coated and totally unsuited to pigment printers, unless you like flat ugly photos that scratch like instant lottery cards. The pro paper comes in rolls / large sheets, is RC coated, probably made by someone else and available at lower cost elsewhere. I doubt that you could buy a 6x4. Then you're saying that the paper that would be best to use with Kodak's new printers (unless new paper is introduced next month) will have to be some other manufacturer's paper, designed for pigment ink? This is one of the reasons why I think that the 10 cent cost per print must be based only on ink cost. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak announces printer breakthrough
ray wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, Mark² wrote: frederick wrote: ASAAR wrote: NPR's Marketplace reported shortly after 6:00 PM that Kodak announced a new line of printers that would potentially change the printer market. There was no technological breakthrough announced. Instead, Kodak plans to sell printers for higher prices, and cut the ink cost at least in half. The report added that it would allow Kodak's printers to make 4" x 6" prints for 10 cents vs. a typical 15 cent cost using online printing services. I didn't hear any mention of where the announcement was made or where it was reported. I'm guessing that it will have been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but I haven't spotted anything on the NYT home page, its Technology or Business sections, so it may have been announced too late to make it into these papers. It is good news. I wonder who is making the printers for Kodak? Assuming that Canon/Epson/HP wouldn't want to play the game, perhaps Brother or Lexmark? Epson have considerable room to move. US price of their consumables is approximately 50% higher than Japan, and European customers pay more than double. Epson advertise their printers (identical to US/European models, but with different model names/numbers) with JBMIA standard photo yield data indicating prices more consistent with Kodak's new claims than the expected $0.30 or more in the US market. I doubt it's Lexmark. I don't know of any pigment inks by them, and they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their lives. Rather a sweeping statement. I previously worked with a Lexmark laser printer that was very solid and dependable and one of the faster printers in the world. Blew the doors off the very expensive HP network printer we also had. Who is talking about laser printers? Lexmark is usually the printer that is thrown in "for free" with computers from various manufacturers. Every single one I've come accross was crap...with ink carts that often didn't even include a black, rather they just mixed all the colors together to get black...which made for a soggy, crappy page. They are super cheap, and I've yet to see one perform well. If they've gota decent laswer printer, great! But the assumption here is photo printing. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Digital Camera | newcamz.blogspot.com | Digital Photography | 46 | August 12th 06 01:45 PM |
Kodak Printer | Andrew Burtenshaw | Digital Photography | 17 | April 19th 05 04:36 PM |
Kodak Printer docks | Brandy | Digital Photography | 0 | December 30th 04 11:16 PM |
Amazing breakthrough in digital photography | Lionel Lauer | Digital Photography | 1 | June 29th 04 07:38 PM |
Kodak announces new film | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 27 | June 19th 04 05:32 AM |