Kodak announces printer breakthrough

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:12:57 -0500, 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's on several major newspapers - do a simple web search - I think I
    found it on the Washington Post site - also info on the Kodak site. They
    are introducing three 'all-in-ones'. Cost of consumables is about 1/2 of
    the major players. One downer is that the color cartridge has all five
    colors in one package.
    ray, Feb 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:39:05 -0700, ray wrote:

    > It's on several major newspapers - do a simple web search - I think I
    > found it on the Washington Post site - also info on the Kodak site. They
    > are introducing three 'all-in-ones'. Cost of consumables is about 1/2 of
    > the major players. One downer is that the color cartridge has all five
    > colors in one package.


    Yep. Less than I expected, but how often do businesses try to
    downplay their announcements. I wonder if the low cost estimate
    took the cost of paper into account. Still, if it has a ripple
    effect and gets other manufacturers to lower the ink costs for their
    own all-in-ones, it should eventually have a trickle-up effect for
    their higher end printers.
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #3
  4. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:12:57 -0500, 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's on several major newspapers - do a simple web search - I think I
    > found it on the Washington Post site - also info on the Kodak site.
    > They are introducing three 'all-in-ones'. Cost of consumables is
    > about 1/2 of the major players. One downer is that the color
    > cartridge has all five colors in one package.


    True, but the fact that they are selling this ink...which is *Pigment
    based*...for this price...is huge.
    HP...Take notice!! HP has made their ink carts smaller...and smaller...and
    smaller, while the price has skyrocketed. It's a total racket now. Kodak
    may well sell me a printer in a month or two... -And I've already got 4
    hooked up to this computer... NONE of which are Kodak...and ALL of which
    slurp up over-priced inks.

    I say, "GIVE EM HECK, KODAK!!"
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #4
  5. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    Ron Hunter, Feb 7, 2007
    #5
  6. ASAAR

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:39:38 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > 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.


    And isn't that what so many have been asking for? I wonder how
    much ink the cartridges hold. Still, $25 for both is a good deal
    less than the $66 it cost for a color and b/w cart. for my old HP
    printer, or twice that price for the cart's HP fills with more ink.
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.

    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.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. At $14.99 for the 5 color ink cartridge compared to 5 color ink cartridges
    for say the Epson 320 that is a lot cheaper than half. The question is what
    are you paying for in the printer. Cheap and lame scanner, fax, document
    scanner, copier function or a good quality high resolution photo printer. My
    bet the ink maybe cheaper but the print quality isn't going to cut the
    mustard. Also, no mention on available papers, how long the print live or
    anything else.

    Since Kodak these days aren't exactly known for top of the line consumer
    products, I think I would pass.

    ljc


    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:12:57 -0500, 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's on several major newspapers - do a simple web search - I think I
    > found it on the Washington Post site - also info on the Kodak site. They
    > are introducing three 'all-in-ones'. Cost of consumables is about 1/2 of
    > the major players. One downer is that the color cartridge has all five
    > colors in one package.
    >
    Little Juice Coupe, Feb 7, 2007
    #9
  10. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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? :)
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #10
  11. ASAAR

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #11
  12. ASAAR

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #12
  13. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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?
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #13
  14. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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, Feb 7, 2007
    #14
  15. ASAAR

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #15
  16. ASAAR

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #16
  17. ASAAR

    ray Guest

    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.
    ray, Feb 7, 2007
    #17
  18. ASAAR

    Paul J Gans Guest

    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
    Paul J Gans, Feb 7, 2007
    #18
  19. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #19
  20. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Baron  Maximillian von Schtuldeworfshiseundurheimh

    Re: Whitley Strieber's New Breakthrough

    Baron Maximillian von Schtuldeworfshiseundurheimh, Oct 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
    Baron Maximillian von Schtuldeworfshiseundurheimh
    Oct 19, 2003
  2. Jill

    A remarkable breakthrough: Sony DSC-F828

    Jill, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,141
    PTRAVEL
    Oct 28, 2003
  3. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    457
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    631
    Yakov Chiu
    Apr 1, 2005
  5. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Digital Camera

    newcamz.blogspot.com, Aug 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    945
    minnesotti
    Aug 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page