Kodak printers

What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak
introduced not that long ago?

On 07/08/2010 21:18, Richard Steinfeld wrote:
What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak introduced not
that long ago?

Status? They are well made and reliable. The ink is cheap (in comparison
to other makes), the quality of the printing is excellent, and the after
sales service is also excellent. I have had one now for over two years
and have only had one problem (a defective print head that was replaced
free of charge without quibble).

The Epsons that I had before only lasted a little over a year before
going wrong so I am delighted with the quality of the Kodak.

--
Howard Neil

"Howard Neil" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 07/08/2010 21:18, Richard Steinfeld wrote:
What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak introduced not
that long ago?

Status? They are well made and reliable. The ink is cheap (in comparison
to other makes), the quality of the printing is excellent, and the after
sales service is also excellent. [snip]

For another view see he
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352799,00.asp for results of PC
Magazine's annual reader survey which says:

"Perhaps worse for Kodak, it's the first company to show a percentage of
products needing repairs higher than Xerox does. We've never exactly been
able to figure out why for years running Xerox has had double-digit numbers
in this category. Last year it was at 18 percent (and Kodak was at 14
percent). However, this year Xerox's percentage needing repair only went up
to 22; Kodak more than doubled to 31 percent. That's almost one in three
Kodak printers needing a fix; a big problem for a company that hasn't been
in the printer business very long. On the other end of the repair spectrum,
if you want products that don't need many repairs, go with Samsung or
Epson."

On the other hand, they did receive the best ratings for cost of
consumables.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

On 13/08/2010 21:30, Bob Headrick wrote:
"Howard Neil" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 07/08/2010 21:18, Richard Steinfeld wrote:
What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak introduced not
that long ago?

Status? They are well made and reliable. The ink is cheap (in
comparison to other makes), the quality of the printing is excellent,
and the after sales service is also excellent. [snip]

For another view see he
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352799,00.asp for results of PC
Magazine's annual reader survey which says:

"Perhaps worse for Kodak, it's the first company to show a percentage of
products needing repairs higher than Xerox does. We've never exactly
been able to figure out why for years running Xerox has had double-digit
numbers in this category. Last year it was at 18 percent (and Kodak was
at 14 percent). However, this year Xerox's percentage needing repair
only went up to 22; Kodak more than doubled to 31 percent. That's almost
one in three Kodak printers needing a fix; a big problem for a company
that hasn't been in the printer business very long. On the other end of
the repair spectrum, if you want products that don't need many repairs,
go with Samsung or Epson."

On the other hand, they did receive the best ratings for cost of
consumables.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging



Kodak did have a problem with the company that manufactured the print
heads for them. That has now been, apparently, rectified. Kodak
rectified the matter with the customers by sending them a new print head
free of charge (it is very simple to change the heads). When Epson
printers need fixing (after about a year), it costs so much that it is
cheaper to buy a new printer (from my own experience with six Epson
printers).

That is a big difference and shows what happens when figures are taken
out of context. I take it that Kodak don't advertise with pcmag. One
reason I don't read such magazines is poor reporting that favours the
companies that advertise with them.

--
Howard Neil

On Aug 14, 3:28*am, Howard Neil wrote:
On 13/08/2010 21:30, Bob Headrick wrote:



"Howard Neil" wrote in message
news:fuidnREI0rLN_8PRnZ2dnUVZ8oadnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...

On 07/08/2010 21:18, Richard Steinfeld wrote:
What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak introduced not
that long ago?

Status? They are well made and reliable. The ink is cheap (in
comparison to other makes), the quality of the printing is excellent,
and the after sales service is also excellent. [snip]

For another view see he
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352799,00.aspfor results of PC
Magazine's annual reader survey which says:

"Perhaps worse for Kodak, it's the first company to show a percentage of
products needing repairs higher than Xerox does. We've never exactly
been able to figure out why for years running Xerox has had double-digit
numbers in this category. Last year it was at 18 percent (and Kodak was
at 14 percent). However, this year Xerox's percentage needing repair
only went up to 22; Kodak more than doubled to 31 percent. That's almost
one in three Kodak printers needing a fix; a big problem for a company
that hasn't been in the printer business very long. On the other end of
the repair spectrum, if you want products that don't need many repairs,
go with Samsung or Epson."

On the other hand, they did receive the best ratings for cost of
consumables.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

Kodak did have a problem with the company that manufactured the print
heads for them. That has now been, apparently, rectified. Kodak
rectified the matter with the customers by sending them a new print head
free of charge (it is very simple to change the heads). When Epson
printers need fixing (after about a year), it costs so much that it is
cheaper to buy a new printer (from my own experience with six Epson
printers).

That is a big difference and shows what happens when figures are taken
out of context. I take it that Kodak don't advertise with pcmag. One
reason I don't read such magazines is poor reporting that favours the
companies that advertise with them.

--
Howard Neil

I had two Kodak printers when they first came out. Both printers had
problems with the printheads clogging and malfunctioning. I thought
the printing was just OK. Kodak was very good about sending out
replacement printheads, but it became a hassle each time to call
customer service, go through the diagnostics, and then wait for a new
printhead. I also seemed to spend a lot of ink on printhead
cleanings. Since the Kodak ink cartridge is basically just an ink
tank (with the printhead being separate), is it really such a bargain
in their cheaper prices on ink? I finally gave up on my Kodak
Printers and returned to using older HP printers where the ink
cartridges can be refilled or purchased refilled at really reasonable
prices. If a printhead clog cannot be cleared or malfunctions, I just
replace the cartridge.