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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

ASAAR wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If everything
HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and efficiency over
the past few years had been true, then we'd all be printing for free now.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

frederick wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If everything
> HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and efficiency
> over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be printing for
> free now.

I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total fiasco...like the
dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the time) stable new ink
system (1270/870 printers).

Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a mere $20
or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be something to
it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply identified the huge
irritation factor people have developed with the US ink-jet market costs,
and are poised to make a real attack on that front. Good for them.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Mark² wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>> printing for free now.
>
> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>
> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on
> that
> front. Good for them.

Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers"
noticed: no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of that,
can you ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable version.
Download it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "

--
Frank ess
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Frank ess wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>>> printing for free now.
>>
>> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
>> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
>> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
>> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>>
>> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
>> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
>> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
>> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
>> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on that
>> front. Good for them.
>
> Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
> clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers" noticed:
> no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of that, can you
> ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable version. Download
> it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "
>
If you are selling prints or your photos and ink cost is a concern, then
you are underselling your prints many many times over.
Incidentally, I have an Epson R1800, and the cost to run a manual
cleaning cycle - "level 1" is a little over $1. In 18 months I have
never needed to run a manual clean cycle. Epson printers of old are
another issue.
OTOH ink costs are way too high. Hopefully Kodak will "stir the pot"
enough for what appears to be a gentleman's agreement between the big
three to collapse.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

frederick wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know - but beware of headline / press releases. If
>>>> everything HP/Canon/Epson have said about improved reliability and
>>>> efficiency over the past few years had been true, then we'd all be
>>>> printing for free now.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen those kind of claims from Epson.
>>> Epson HAS made some claims in the past that were a total
>>> fiasco...like the dreaded "orange shift" in their supposedly (at the
>>> time) stable new ink system (1270/870 printers).
>>>
>>> Kodak is offering the Black in cart and color cart together for a
>>> mere $20 or so. That's SO much cheaper, that there has to be
>>> something to it--especially for pigment ink. I think they've simply
>>> identified the huge irritation factor people have developed with the
>>> US ink-jet market costs, and are poised to make a real attack on
>>> that front. Good for them.
>>
>> Maybe they noticed that last time Mr Epson took 15$-worth of ink to
>> clean the jets, I just quit cooperating. My former "customers"
>> noticed: no more "Sure" responses to "I'd really like a print of
>> that, can you ... " Now it's "I'll send you the URL of a printable
>> version. Download it or buy a print off FotoTime ... "
>>
> If you are selling prints or your photos and ink cost is a concern,
> then you are underselling your prints many many times over.

On the other hand...if you're printing professionally, and you don't stop to
consider premium pigment ink costs...you're probably not being as careful in
your business as you should be.


> Incidentally, I have an Epson R1800, and the cost to run a manual
> cleaning cycle - "level 1" is a little over $1. In 18 months I have
> never needed to run a manual clean cycle. Epson printers of old are
> another issue.

Ya, although I still have my old 1270, and it still prints without clogging.
My main photo printer is the much larger 4000. This stuff from Kodak would
be useful to me as an all-around printer, but if the pigment inks are this
cheap, and still render colors well...I'd use it to snap off 4x6s to keep
the family happy.


> OTOH ink costs are way too high. Hopefully Kodak will "stir the pot"
> enough for what appears to be a gentleman's agreement between the big
> three to collapse.

That's my hope, too. At $150-300, I might try it...and if it doesn't work
for me...I'll give it to my parents...who are fed up with their microscopic
HP print cartridges.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

ASAAR wrote:
> 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.
>

With most manufacturers giving away the printer (well, almost), and
making a killing on cartridges (the Gillette marking scheme), this new
line may cause a change in the whole industry. Go get'em Kodak!
 >> Stay informed about: 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?
>
I suspect that is the ink price. Still, with HP selling packs of paper
and 'ink' for their 4x6 picture printers at $.50 a picture (down from
$.75), that still leaves a bit of room for a good paper.
IF I could print a few 4x6 pictures for $.15 each, I would much less
motivated to drive to Sam's Club and hassle with the kiosk for prints,
not that I do this often, to save only a couple of cents/picture.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

In article <l24is2p02smhoo115rjk539h971f897iqv.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, caught.DeleteThis@22.com
says...
> 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.
>
>
Still not such a deal as refilling cartridges on Canon (or other)
printers, getting you down to under 5c per 4x6.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
> In article <l24is2p02smhoo115rjk539h971f897iqv RemoveThis @4ax.com>, caught RemoveThis @22.com
> says...
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Still not such a deal as refilling cartridges on Canon (or other)
> printers, getting you down to under 5c per 4x6.
My limited experience with refilling has been uniformly negative.
Others seem to have better results, but I just can't seem to get a
refilled cartridge to work, at all.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough 

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.

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

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak announces printer breakthrough