Digital BW, The Print

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

The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any decisions 
made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. I point 
out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the collective group 
(who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be 
believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational 
decisions based on our collective expertise. 

Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We 
are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to representing 
the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the U.S.). 
There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography etc. We 
were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are all 
professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was far 
too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that GB 
wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users. 


>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 just told you. We were there by request to look at the printer for prosumers 
and pros. Pro's use the 2200 too! One well know photographer in the group 
uses this printer and I suspect he charges more in one day then most people 
on this list make in 6 months! You also assume that the 2200 differs in how it 
operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our 
comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There 
isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price. 

>You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific 
>vested interests... 

Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a product 
would be if it was designed by committee? The advice given was from a very 
specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group of 
people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. It wasn't. We were all 
made fully aware of the aim of this productlong before we tested it. That's why 
this group was assembled. We were hand picked based on our specific slant 
and based on the aim of this printer. 


>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.. 

Product design by committee for pro users, and morons? I wish that could be 
done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200, 
the focus was made.

>You have made clear your 
>independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested 
>interests at all.. 

A post was made to the contrary. I think it should be made CLEAR that our 
collective advice was made for the sole purpose of producing a better 
product. 


>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.. 

I understand that and my follow up were not aimed at you personally. 

>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? "

>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.

I never said I was such an expert in this area. I can only tell you that a group of 
people who's advice many companies have asked for in the past were 
assembled and we all unanimously agreed about where GB should be in the 
food chain. Some didn't like that decision Epson made (many who never saw 
the GB in the first place). Based on those people's expertise (or lack) in the 
field AND the fact they never saw the software or knew the aim of the product, 
I have to dismiss much of their posts based on their misunderstandings. 

>And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping 
>product accomplishes that HOW?

Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every piece 
of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on 
it? 

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

In the long run yes. The software has to be keep up to date. It needs to be 
changed as the drivers are updated as well as all the flavors of OS change 
(OSX 10.2 will change a lot of issues with printing). It keeps cost down since 
tech support is very expensive, especially for a product that doesn't give any 
bang for the buck as GB does. What happens as the reference target fades or 
the user loses it? Epson has to stock that target and keep dealing with 
customers that need a new one. They have to update the PDF as they refine 
the product (and boy, GB needs refinement in a very big way). Better to cut 
your loses and move one. 

>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?

That was our advice to them. We had 4 high level people from Epson Japan 
at the two day meetings. One was in change of ink, the other in charge of the 
driver. One was in charge of GB. Epson flew them from Japan to meet with us. 
We were able to talk with them and tell them our wishes for newer inks, newer 
capabilities of the driver. We were very firm in letting these key people from 
Japan know that the focus made on GB was a bad one. Did that help? Time 
will tell. 

>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.. ? 

We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers. 

So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted to 
make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You can't do 
it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's 
insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so 
you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print. You 
can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we 
discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers. 

>If you even suggested that, 
>suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the 
>development of drivers for the large format market... 

No, I said it was silly to see the same driver on a $99 printer drive a $10,000 
printer. The two have vastly different requirements and users. Make the $99 
driver easier to use and the $10K driver more robust. 

>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..

Yes, cut your losses and move on. HAD Japan shown us the product when it 
was pre-alpha, we could have helped design a better product in the first 
place. They didn't so our advice was to cut your losses and move on. I still 
think that's a good idea (as apparently the others in our group feel). Several in 
the group has produced or been instrumental in software development. If you 
had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from 
direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed. 

>So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more 
>R&D how? 

It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB onto 
something far more useful. 

>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..

Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources can 
be used for more important needs. 

>I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it 
>would compete with custom profiles.. 

You didn't, others did. 

>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.. 

Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such that 
next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included. But 
such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would be a 
very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to 
plug a USB cable into a printer. I'm not saying you are such a person but 
rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to 
advice a company and that these people have to have some level of expertise 
and an idea of what a product is aimed to do and have an idea of the user 
base. 


>If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel 
said, you should have chosen not to participate.. 

I'm frustrated by people that make stupid assumptions based on things they 
know nothing about (like that we advised that GB be removed because some 
of us make profiles). Again, that isn't aimed at you. Those that made such 
assumptions know who they are. I'm frustrated by people that complain that 
they didn't get a piece of software they know nothing about nor have ever 
seen or tried. I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't 
purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S. 
and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software. 

The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is elsewhere. 
Let's see how well it does in other markets.