If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can Kodak break the ink cartel?
Ever since Kodak announced on February 6th its entrance into the
consumer photo inkjet arena, market analysts have been debating if Kodak can compete in this already mature market, especially against the printer giant Hewlett-Packard. With its very profitable film sales market rapidly dwindling, Kodak quickly needs another cash cow. Kodak's CEO, Antonio Perez, came to Kodak three and a half years ago from HP's very profitable inkjet- printer business, with a plan to revitalize the company through a dramatic change in the consumer inkjet industry. Perez's plan was to produce an inkjet printer and ink as good or better than the competition, but to attack the thing that has aggravated consumers the most-the high cost of inks. Ink manufacturer profits often reaching over 75%, tempting companies to sell their printers at or below cost, just to get the ink cartridge sales (the old razor and razor blade principle). Kodak's plan is to sell ink cartridges at prices that are one-half of their competition, and still be highly profitable because consumers will be induced to print more photos at the cheaper prices, and then buy more of their ink. See related story: http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/news/2007-02-09.html High-ranking executives from both HP and Epson have scoffed at Kodak's plans to compete in their markets. Market analysts predict that it will be difficult for Kodak to get shelf space at many of the big-box stores because HP offers so many incentives to dealers to keep their products in front of buyers, and exclude competitors. With so much on the line, industry experts expect HP to pull out all the stops. After reading Business Week's six page article ("Kodak's Moment of Truth") in their February 19th issue, I believe Kodak and Perez's team can pull this off. Analysts who have seen Kodak's printers have come away impressed. Although this is a roll of the dice on a risky new strategy to reinvent the inkjet printer, all the right pieces are in place. Susan Tousi, Kodak's head of R&D (and affectionately dubbed by her colleagues as the "Queen of Geeks") kept sending the engineering staff back to the drawing board to get it right, after having been told by Perez, "We have only one chance to do this right. If our first introduction fails, we fail." Unlike HP, Kodak's EasyShare printers follow Epson and Canon's philosophy of placing the print heads in the printer and not on the ink cartridges. This allows the manufacturer to producer much cheaper inkjet cartridges, because their main purpose is just to act as a reservoir to hold ink. To really cut costs, Kodak could have gone with the cheaper and less problematic dye ink technology. But dye inks fade fast, often in less than 15 years, and dye made prints are very susceptible to smudging and water damage. Kodak's R&D team spent almost three years developing a new pigment ink technology that produces water-resistant and fade-resistant prints that will last 100 years or more. Kodak's inkjet printers have 3,840 nozzles that fire at a rate of 24,000 drops per second. The pigment inks dry in just 15 milliseconds on Kodak's microporous papers, and the printers can produce a 4x6 print in 28 seconds. The Kodak EasyShare All-in-One printers (starting at $149.99) are focused on the consumer market, with black ink replacement cartridges costing $9.99 and color $14.99 (all 5 colors). If consumers buy Kodak's economical Photo Value Pack, which combines paper and ink, the cost per print is about 10 cents, vs. 24 cents for HP's comparable package and 29 cents for Epson's. To kick-start distribution, Kodak has made a deal with Best Buy Co, to be the exclusive retailer of these products for the first three months, beginning in March, when the printers are introduced. Royce Bair Tips, news, reviews and resources... http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can Kodak break the ink cartel?
measekite wrote:
That is not totally true. Sure for the entry level printers like the IP4300 and the R3xx and HP entry like that but it does not hold true for the wide format printers like the Canon Pro 9000 and the Epson R1800 etc. With those you have a relatively high printer costs and the same high ink costs. I know that there is not the volume on those printers so it would be nice to see quality OEM ink costs go down across the entire industry. I too have several "pro" printers (i.e. Epson R2400, Epson Pro 4800) that have high printer costs --but we're talking about the "consumer" market. There are only 150,000 professional photographers in the USA, but millions of consumers that want to print their photos cheaply. Where can we read about this scoffing? USA Today had an article after the Feb 6 Kodak announcement that said: "Epson's Vice-President Keith Kratzberg isn't worried. 'Selling lower- priced ink doesn't sound like much to go on,' he says. 'Kodak will have to exceed our level of quality, which won't be easy.' The Business Week article had several cutting remarks by the HP execs. That is not true [about dye ink fading quickly]. The Canon ink on my IP4000 has not fading in over two years with prints just lying on a desk. The newer dye ink is even better and the results have more impact and a better color gamut than pigment inks. It is true, however, that the pigment inks will last longer (especially on artistic papers) than the dye counterparts under the same circumstances. I admit that Canon is an exception, but generally, most dye inks fade quite quickly. I was an early pioneer in helping to bring some of the more robust dye inks into the market in the late 1990's and early 2000's, i.e. Lysonic and Fotonic. Rumor has it that Canon negotiated with Lyson to use the Fotonic ink formulation in their printers. It has been proven that some of the newer pigment ink formulation actually have as wide of a color gamut as dye inks. What most pigment inks lack is the little extra D-Max that dye inks inheritanly have because pigment inks lie more on the surface of the print and reflect more light. Despite this, the better pigment inks already produce a higher D-Max and wider color gamut that most photo wet lab prints (we're spoiled). Now tell me a relabeler is going to spend 3 years to develop an ink. That's the clincher. At Kodak's prices it is going to make it virtually unprofitable for the relabelers and compatibles to produce knock-off inks. And what about other microporous paper? I don't think Kodak's microporous paper is going to be much different than some of the good "premium" microporous papers out there already, but it will often come as a package deal with the inks. If the soccer mom gets terrific looking prints at a great price, she's not going look any further for competitive products. Royce Bair Tips, news, reviews and resources... http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Can Kodak break the ink cartel?
wrote: measekite wrote: That is not totally true. Sure for the entry level printers like the IP4300 and the R3xx and HP entry like that but it does not hold true for the wide format printers like the Canon Pro 9000 and the Epson R1800 etc. With those you have a relatively high printer costs and the same high ink costs. I know that there is not the volume on those printers so it would be nice to see quality OEM ink costs go down across the entire industry. I too have several "pro" printers (i.e. Epson R2400, Epson Pro 4800) that have high printer costs --but we're talking about the "consumer" market. There are only 150,000 professional photographers in the USA, but millions of consumers that want to print their photos cheaply. Where can we read about this scoffing? USA Today had an article after the Feb 6 Kodak announcement that said: "Epson's Vice-President Keith Kratzberg isn't worried. 'Selling lower- priced ink doesn't sound like much to go on,' he says. 'Kodak will have to exceed our level of quality, which won't be easy.' The Business Week article had several cutting remarks by the HP execs. That is not true [about dye ink fading quickly]. The Canon ink on my IP4000 has not fading in over two years with prints just lying on a desk. The newer dye ink is even better and the results have more impact and a better color gamut than pigment inks. It is true, however, that the pigment inks will last longer (especially on artistic papers) than the dye counterparts under the same circumstances. I admit that Canon is an exception, but generally, most dye inks fade quite quickly. I was an early pioneer in helping to bring some of the more robust dye inks into the market in the late 1990's and early 2000's, i.e. Lysonic and Fotonic. Rumor has it that Canon negotiated with Lyson to use the Fotonic ink formulation in their printers. It has been proven that some of the newer pigment ink formulation actually have as wide of a color gamut as dye inks. What most pigment inks lack is the little extra D-Max that dye inks inheritanly have because pigment inks lie more on the surface of the print and reflect more light. Despite this, the better pigment inks already produce a higher D-Max and wider color gamut that most photo wet lab prints (we're spoiled). Now tell me a relabeler is going to spend 3 years to develop an ink. That's the clincher. At Kodak's prices it is going to make it virtually unprofitable for the relabelers and compatibles to produce knock-off inks. I think that is terrific. I wish Canon, Epson, and HP would also drop their prices for ink in half (and maybe raise the printer price some) and drive the relabelers out of the business. Then we will have some consistency and professional labeling. And what about other microporous paper? I don't think Kodak's microporous paper is going to be much different than some of the good "premium" microporous papers out there already, but it will often come as a package deal with the inks. If the soccer mom gets terrific looking prints at a great price, she's not going look any further for competitive products. If this Kodak printer is any good then I hope they make a dual paper feed wide format printer as well. Royce Bair Tips, news, reviews and resources... http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can Kodak break the ink cartel?
On Feb 14, 3:06 pm, measekite wrote:
wrote: measekite wrote: That is not totally true. Sure for the entry level printers like the IP4300 and the R3xx and HP entry like that but it does not hold true for the wide format printers like the Canon Pro 9000 and the Epson R1800 etc. With those you have a relatively high printer costs and the same high inkcosts. I know that there is not the volume on those printers so it would be nice to see quality OEMinkcosts go down across the entire industry. I too have several "pro" printers (i.e. Epson R2400, Epson Pro 4800) that have high printer costs --but we're talking about the "consumer" market. There are only 150,000 professional photographers in the USA, but millions of consumers that want to print their photos cheaply. Where can we read about this scoffing? USA Today had an article after the Feb 6 Kodak announcement that said: "Epson's Vice-President Keith Kratzberg isn't worried. 'Selling lower- pricedinkdoesn't sound like much to go on,' he says. 'Kodak will have to exceed our level of quality, which won't be easy.' The Business Week article had several cutting remarks by the HP execs. That is not true [about dyeinkfading quickly]. The Canoninkon my IP4000 has not fading in over two years with prints just lying on a desk. The newer dyeinkis even better and the results have more impact and a better color gamut than pigment inks. It is true, however, that the pigment inks will last longer (especially on artistic papers) than the dye counterparts under the same circumstances. I admit that Canon is an exception, but generally, most dye inks fade quite quickly. I was an early pioneer in helping to bring some of the more robust dye inks into the market in the late 1990's and early 2000's, i.e. Lysonic and Fotonic. Rumor has it that Canon negotiated with Lyson to use the Fotonicinkformulation in their printers. It has been proven that some of the newer pigmentinkformulation actually have as wide of a color gamut as dye inks. What most pigment inks lack is the little extra D-Max that dye inks inheritanly have because pigment inks lie more on the surface of the print and reflect more light. Despite this, the better pigment inks already produce a higher D-Max and wider color gamut that most photo wet lab prints (we're spoiled). Now tell me a relabeler is going to spend 3 years to develop anink. That's the clincher. At Kodak's prices it is going to make it virtually unprofitable for the relabelers and compatibles to produce knock-off inks. I think that is terrific. I wish Canon, Epson, and HP would also drop their prices forinkin half (and maybe raise the printer price some) and drive the relabelers out of the business. Then we will have some consistency and professional labeling. And what about other microporous paper? I don't think Kodak's microporous paper is going to be much different than some of the good "premium" microporous papers out there already, but it will often come as a package deal with the inks. If the soccer mom gets terrific looking prints at a great price, she's not going look any further for competitive products. If this Kodak printer is any good then I hope they make a dual paper feed wide format printer as well. Royce Bair Tips, news, reviews and resources... http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/ Check out http://www.inkisit.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can Kodak break the ink cartel?
On Mar 15, 3:12 am, "inkisit.com" wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:06 pm, measekite wrote: wrote: measekite wrote: That is not totally true. Sure for the entry level printers like the IP4300 and the R3xx and HP entry like that but it does not hold true for the wide format printers like the Canon Pro 9000 and the Epson R1800 etc. With those you have a relatively high printer costs and the same high inkcosts. I know that there is not the volume on those printers so it would be nice to see quality OEMinkcosts go down across the entire industry. I too have several "pro" printers (i.e. Epson R2400, Epson Pro 4800) that have high printer costs --but we're talking about the "consumer" market. There are only 150,000 professional photographers in the USA, but millions of consumers that want to print their photos cheaply. Where can we read about this scoffing? USA Today had an article after the Feb 6 Kodak announcement that said: "Epson's Vice-President Keith Kratzberg isn't worried. 'Selling lower- pricedinkdoesn't sound like much to go on,' he says. 'Kodak will have to exceed our level of quality, which won't be easy.' The Business Week article had several cutting remarks by the HP execs. That is not true [about dyeinkfading quickly]. The Canoninkon my IP4000 has not fading in over two years with prints just lying on a desk. The newer dyeinkis even better and the results have more impact and a better color gamut than pigment inks. It is true, however, that the pigment inks will last longer (especially on artistic papers) than the dye counterparts under the same circumstances. I admit that Canon is an exception, but generally, most dye inks fade quite quickly. I was an early pioneer in helping to bring some of the more robust dye inks into the market in the late 1990's and early 2000's, i.e. Lysonic and Fotonic. Rumor has it that Canon negotiated with Lyson to use the Fotonicinkformulation in their printers. It has been proven that some of the newer pigmentinkformulation actually have as wide of a color gamut as dye inks. What most pigment inks lack is the little extra D-Max that dye inks inheritanly have because pigment inks lie more on the surface of the print and reflect more light. Despite this, the better pigment inks already produce a higher D-Max and wider color gamut that most photo wet lab prints (we're spoiled). Now tell me a relabeler is going to spend 3 years to develop anink. That's the clincher. At Kodak's prices it is going to make it virtually unprofitable for the relabelers and compatibles to produce knock-off inks. I think that is terrific. I wish Canon, Epson, and HP would also drop their prices forinkin half (and maybe raise the printer price some) and drive the relabelers out of the business. Then we will have some consistency and professional labeling. And what about other microporous paper? I don't think Kodak's microporous paper is going to be much different than some of the good "premium" microporous papers out there already, but it will often come as a package deal with the inks. If the soccer mom gets terrific looking prints at a great price, she's not going look any further for competitive products. If this Kodak printer is any good then I hope they make a dual paper feed wide format printer as well. Royce Bair Tips, news, reviews and resources... http://www.InkjetNEWSandTIPS.com/ Check outhttp://www.inkisit.com It may appeal to some...low-level types. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson Clossy vs. Kodak Ultima paper | george | Printers | 4 | October 12th 06 10:07 PM |
Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500? | tomviolin | Printers | 132 | May 11th 05 04:18 PM |
Canon ip3000 and Kodak soft gloss double sided picture paper = faded blacks and wet ink | Steve | Printers | 1 | January 12th 05 03:57 PM |
HELP - Canon S900 print to Kodak Paper | Dave | Printers | 19 | December 10th 04 09:05 PM |
L-G Electronics GCE-8520B burner compatibility with Kodak EasyShare DX4530. | Jacques | General Hardware | 0 | December 21st 03 09:53 PM |