«

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.

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:26:35 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> pointer_outer here)@cox..net> 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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