Kodak announces printer breakthrough

ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:40:05 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

But isn't the print head built into the printer? Is there a
benefit to that long-term? Hope it would be a low-cost user
replaceable option.

It probably is. If the print head was built into the ink
cartridges, as is done with my HP carts, Kodak probably would have
to charge quite a bit more than $10 and $15 for their cartridges.
If the printers are like most, it only makes sense to replace print
heads for very expensive printers. These new Kodaks aren't dirt
cheap, but they're not particularly expensive either. Unless Kodak
had *really* changed direction and will make head replacement simple
and inexpensive, replacing the entire printer is probably almost as
cost effective, and you end up with not just a new print head, but a
completely new printer with a new warranty, and maybe a starter
cartridge or two tossed in. Considering the much greater longevity
of non-replaceable print heads, there should be enough savings from
lower ink costs to pay for a new printer several times over if it
comes to that.


I can't seem to find the pictures of the ink cartridges I saw the other
day, but it seemed that they did have the head built-in. Since I didn't
examine the picture carefully, I could be mistaken, but I did get that
impression.

I read in an article that Kodak said they were able to charge
less for the ink because they did have a dedicated print head
built in to the printer itself.

My concern would be how that would affect quality.

I don't know which Epson or HP or Lexmark printers have built-in
print heads and which don't, so it's hard for me to judge.

But whatever Epson has done on the Epson Photo printers that I
have bought, I'm probably going to avoid them in the future
because I end up using a ton of ink just to get it "unclogged"
and working. It is extremely frustrating. Epson Photo 780
printed great stuff - when it printed. But it was just a money
pit of wasted ink.

I can't seem to find the pictures of the ink cartridges I saw
the other day, but it seemed that they did have the head
built-in. Since I didn't examine the picture carefully, I
could be mistaken, but I did get that impression.

"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote in news:dxByh.3167
$yI1.973@trndny01:

I read in an article that Kodak said they were able to charge
less for the ink because they did have a dedicated print head
built in to the printer itself.

My concern would be how that would affect quality.

I don't know which Epson or HP or Lexmark printers have built-in
print heads and which don't, so it's hard for me to judge.

But whatever Epson has done on the Epson Photo printers that I
have bought, I'm probably going to avoid them in the future
because I end up using a ton of ink just to get it "unclogged"
and working. It is extremely frustrating. Epson Photo 780
printed great stuff - when it printed. But it was just a money
pit of wasted ink.

I can't seem to find the pictures of the ink cartridges I saw
the other day, but it seemed that they did have the head
built-in. Since I didn't examine the picture carefully, I
could be mistaken, but I did get that impression.




For Me the deal killer is that all that Kodak is putting out are
all in one printes. I don't want an all in one swiss army knife
printer. I want a photo printer, that works well, dosn't eat my
lunch in ink costs and is easy to use. So far the cost of ink from
Kodak is the only thing it has going for it. Also is the cost of ink
in the real world going to be that low. With all the colors in one cart
I will be dumping a lot of usable ink when I replace cart because I've
used up all the black. My photos often have a black background and I use
up black ink cart at a 2 to 1 rate over any other color in my current
printer. I hope it works for Kodak, but I don't think I'm buying one.

John Passaneau

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.

We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the Canon!

Was the Canon a good investment?

We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the
Canon!

Paul D. Sullivan axed:

We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
Too bad Kodak didn't make these when we bought the Canon!

Was the Canon a good investment?

Too soon to tell.

We are spending a lot less on ink. We run out of black and yellow first
but photo-cyan and photo-magenta cartridges hardly ever need replacing.
Also, Canon shares ink cartridges across a wide variety of printers, so
they are easier to find than our 780 4-color cartridge was.

The main advantage of the new Kodak printers is the pigment-based ink,
versus the dye-based ink in our Canon.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:25:26 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
You may be right. I have had two Epson photo printers and both
use up tons of ink cause I have to do that "head cleaning" thing
all the time. I would think it would be good to have new print
heads every time you buy ink. But maybe there is no correlation.
Maybe Epson just builds bad print heads that clog easily.

We hated our Epson 780 so much that we bought a Canon inkjet.
Too bad Kodak didn't make these printers when we bought the Canon!

Interesting. I hated the Canon BJC5000 so much I bought an Apollo (HP).
Later an Epson R320 - really like that Epson.

Greetings All,

I have completed some classes on the new printers, and I think you are going
to find that what was noted is true. The prints are excellent and the
printers are as well. Kodak has been working on its inks for several years
and has a great technology at this point. I am sure you will like them and
the results. As to the paper, I believe the paper that was released about a
year ago will be excellent in these printers. So, most of the Kodak paper
you might find on shelves will do the job and do it well. These printers
also add an element of protection which leaves the printer water resistant.
Very nice, and the prints will last as long as noted.

Following is information that you may find interesting. I will be reviewing
more and will be around to share on posted issues. Talk to you all soon.

From an article about this new release. "Actually, Kodak has been around
inkjet for about 15 years. In order to get into this business, you've got
to have unique talent, intellectual property portfolio, funding, strategic
partners and the path to the channels. Kodak has the unique ability as a
corporation to bring all of these elements to the table. The company's IP
portfolio is impressive, including over 1,000 patents in inkjet printing
alone. And over 900 more patents in image science. So we didn't approach
this project with empty pockets. We came with a rich portfolio, a very
strong team from both inside the company and of those we recruited. We were
able to acquire 65 engineers from other companies about mid-way into the
program."

This isn't a one-time deal. This inkjet technology could lead us down
several paths with a wide portfolio of products in the next five years.
Stay tuned.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
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.

Cool - thanks.

Was the Canon a good investment?

Too soon to tell.

We are spending a lot less on ink. We run out of black and
yellow first but photo-cyan and photo-magenta cartridges
hardly ever need replacing. Also, Canon shares ink cartridges
across a wide variety of printers, so they are easier to find
than our 780 4-color cartridge was.

The main advantage of the new Kodak printers is the
pigment-based ink, versus the dye-based ink in our Canon.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:08:51 -0500, Ron Baird wrote:

These printers also add an element of protection which leaves
the printer water resistant.

A removable vinyl cover or a little umbrella?


This isn't a one-time deal. This inkjet technology could lead us down
several paths with a wide portfolio of products in the next five years.
Stay tuned.

Most welcome would be some serious photo printers that don't clog
if used intermittently, and would use large ink cartridges or allow
switching to tanks. Make large prints inexpensive enough and Kodak
will sell lots of paper and buckets of ink. (and while the ink
still ain't exactly cheap, it's getting a lot better). Is there any
chance that there'll be some models that will be able to print on
CD/DVD disks, especially if it's without the smearing problems I've
heard that's plaguing another brand? Anyway, as you've no doubt
seen, your new printers are being enthusiastically welcomed, sight
unseen, by people who own other manufacturer's printers. I'm sure
that Kodak did enough research to count on this reaction. It's also
nice knowing that we'll be seeing more of you around these parts!

BTW, I know someone that's got a very small business selling cakes
and cookies and things, using what she says are fairly large Kodak
printers to ornament them with photos and designs using edible ink.
I tried searching for these printers but only came up with people
selling mostly standard consumer grade Canon printers. Are you
familiar with these Kodak printers or do you know of any web pages
that have non-restricted information about them?