Kodak announces printer breakthrough

Discussion in 'Kodak' 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. Advertisements

  2. ASAAR

    ray Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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

    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!!"
    :)
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #4
  5. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    #5
  6. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    #8
  9. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    #9
  10. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    #10
  11. ASAAR

    ray Guest

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

    Paul J Gans Guest

    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, Feb 7, 2007
    #12
  13. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    #13
  14. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #14
  15. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #15
  16. ASAAR

    ray Guest

    The comment was "they couldn't produce a decent printer to save their
    lives" - no qualification as to laser, inkjet or dot matrix.
    I've not had any experience with Lexmark inkjets, but I know from
    experience that some of their lasers are indeed top notch.
     
    ray, Feb 7, 2007
    #16
  17. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    If they have decent lasers, then good for them. That does offer some
    perspective...to hear that they can indeed do SOMETHING that works. This
    is a digital photography NG, so my thoughts are on photo printers. My
    opinion of their inkjet stuff remains that they are total crap. If that
    opinion is out of date, I'm ready to hear other's opinions.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #17
  18. ASAAR

    Mark² Guest

    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.
    :)
    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.
    :)
    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.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #18
  19. Still not such a deal as refilling cartridges on Canon (or other)
    printers, getting you down to under 5c per 4x6.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Feb 7, 2007
    #19
  20. 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.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.