Digital BW, The Print

thedigitaldog wrote:

>  
>
>NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise. 
>  
>
I NEVER even implied you were...

>Most if not all of us have publically discussed our dislike for aspects of the 
>Epson print driver and the fact that a $10K printer uses the SAME driver as a 
>$99 printer.
>  
>
and that relates to the 2200 (a prosumer product) how?  I can see it 
relating to the 7600/9600/10000/etc..  If  your point of "most" is 
accurate it would seem the group was heavily weighted to the large 
format (production printing) environment..

You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific 
vested interests...  and if you go back through my posts you'll see that 
I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically 
negative.  The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as 
is possible, they ALL need to be represented..  You have made clear your 
independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested 
interests at all.. The comment one or two individuals (and I was NOT 
among them) made about your company and profiles, is NOT the vested 
interest of which I speak..  Instead, I mean you come from a specific 
demographic and specific market segment, that is natural..  Every member 
of a panel does so..

>Most of us publically hated the 2000P. If you did your homework, you'd know 
>I've spent a good deal of time advising most people to use another printer. 
>  
>
I didn't say you didn't,  I asked if anyone DID... I assume you ARE able 
to read the English language and comprehend it..

Here's my quote as you YOURSELF posted it

"Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had 
publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices? "

That's a "question"..  I assume we don't need to rehash 2nd grade English here..

To continue... "Selling," "designing," or "manufacturing" the 2000P is distinct from marketing...  A dog of a product is a dog no matter how you market it..

 

>No one was there to try to make Epson happy
>
Never implied people were...

Nor was I among those who said or implied you chose to argue against the 
software BECAUSE your company produces profiles..  I specifically made 
clear that the perception of a conflict of interest is just as bad as a 
real conflict of interest when marketing and selling to the public are key..

 You really need to read some studies of group dynamics... You may be an 
expert on profiles, etc.. but from your post you are WAAAY out of your 
depth on discussing group dynamics and how blue ribbon panels, "as an 
organic entity,"  operate.

> but rather to insure they 
>produce the best possible products.
>  
>
And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping 
product accomplishes that HOW?

>You all seem to forget how much TIME AND MONEY Epson spent working on 
>the Gray Balancer unstead of working on the driver!!! 
>
Nope I haven't..

But see, it doesn't matter does it?  IS KEEPING IT OUT OF THE CURRENT 
SHIPPING PRODUCT SOMEHOW GOING TO GET THAT MONEY BACK?

I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are 
so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the 
Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their 
time" on software  other than the driver?

OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece 
of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K 
printers sold on the USA market.. ?  If you even suggested that, 
suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the 
development of drivers for the large format market... well.. I'll just 
say that buyers in the US will be justified at heaping stinking piles of 
scorn and derision on you for being overly centered on your own market 
niche.. NOTE: I am not accusing you of doing that... just postulating 
certain possible rationales..

>You think this company 
>has unlimited focus and R&D? While some group in Japan spent god knows 
>how many man hours making Gray Balancer (just look at the work in the 200+ 
>page PDF), they were NOT working on the driver.
>
Actually deciding NOT to ship the software given that a priori 
investment, makes the time put into the PDF and even into writing the 
software a COMPLETE loss..

So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more 
R&D how?  It's already made... Wait, I know, you have a time machine and 
can go back and get EPSON to drop development of the grey balancer last 
year... Just tell them it won't be shipping in the US..

> There were not spending 
>time getting more OSX support. They were NOT getting linear ink controls for 
>the user. They might not be working on a generation of printers even better 
>than the 2200. 
>  
>
HUH?  You're becoming irrational...  If you think the 2200 will be their 
last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop 
whatever delusions you are having..

Just so that you DON'T get the wrong impression...

I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it 
would compete with custom profiles..  What I DID suggest was that it is 
impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the 
conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the 
range of your real world experiences..  Just as you said EPSON does not 
have unlimited R&D, no person has infinite experiences, nor can they 
represent an infinite number of conflicting goals..

PS:  I didn't attack you personally in my post.  All I did was explain 
the realities of group dynamics and blue ribbon" panels.  

BUT, Next time you quote from MY post and:

1.  SHOUT, at those of us critiquing, by using three exclamation points
2.  discourse as if those of us, critiquing marketing choices, are 
brainless or ignorant,

expect to get sandbagged again.

We can discuss this as gentlemen onlist, or you can cross swords with me 
offlist if you really want that.. I NEVER back away from a fight. But 
don't start subjecting the group to the personalization of this... 
No-one here yelled at or about you..  

If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel 
said, you should have chosen not to participate..  Don't expect people 
to lay palms at your feet for your efforts -- good people CAN disagree.. 
 If you've been an artist at all, you should know that critique is a 
part of the deal..

Keith
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]