Kodak announces printer breakthrough

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
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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" <ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.07.00.39.05.371434@zianet.com...
> 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.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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?
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough