Digital BW, The Print

thedigitaldog wrote:

> 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. 
>
>  
>
So what FIX is EPSON recommending for US users?  I haven't seen them 
recommend ANY fix, much less admit the metamerism..

> 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. 
>  
>
I expected it uses the same basic printer engine.. As well as the same 
basic driver..

>  
>
>>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? 
>
Of course, this wasn't product design, this was after the fact advice.. 
 Perhaps EPSON should INSTEAD ask the group what IS needed in the next 
generation of hardware..?

>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. 
>
Never did I..

>  
>
>>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?
>
No, its a prosumer product so, by definition, pros and consumers..

> I wish that could be 
>done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200, 
>the focus was made.
>  
>
Which is pros or consumers?

If it was pros as you would argue, then why are large outlets getting 
wholesale shipping preference over ProFocus dealers?  That would seem to 
contradict EPSON's own marketing which presents it as both a pro and 
consumer offering., Remind me to cc Chris Bair on this one.

>  
>
>>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? 
>  
>
Not at all.. However, if it makes tweaking prints to display lighting 
easier for one segment of the target prosumer audience, why NOT include it?

>  
>
>>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. 
>

The advice is a different issue than using not shipping the product as a 
way to drive home the issue..

>>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. 
>
Hey, I hate the clunkiness of the epson driver more than anyone.. Roll 
printing in wide format and with some of the prosumer printers, BUT you 
have to place the images on a single PShop canvas to print them 
economically..  I'll certainly admit its retarded, but I always figured 
it was another way for EPSON to get us to use lots of consumables.. ;-) 
 Since they cost-shift to those consumables it's not an illogical 
assumption.

> 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. 
>  
>
I came to printing from a mixed background, a good deal of my background 
is in IT, and I've beta'd and had ideas incorporated in shipping 
graphics software as well... So, I'm not sure how surprised I might be.. 
That's not to say I wouldn't be 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. 
>  
>
OK.. So, since EPSON USA is saving that $$ how do USA consumers see that 
savings returned to them instead of just to EPSON USA profits?

>  
>
>>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. 
>  
>

You DID say we perhaps wouldn't get a better printer than the 2200 
because the funds were used to support GB..  What bothers me is that 
EPSON chops the software from the US product but will keep releasing 
product in the US market last.  I seriously doubt that  American 
consumers will be the beneficiaries, with any primacy over other 
markets.  Just as a quick check, if anyone knows the GB and US list 
prices, feel free to enlighten me as to whether we get to pay 
significantly less in the us for all these 2200 savings..

>  
>
>>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. 
>
1)    There is that kind of bravery anywhere in the EPSON USA corporate 
decision making structure.. Trust me on that..  They aren't going to 
take someone into the committee who refuses to simply accept a priori as 
a ground rule that the marketing model they have is axiomatic.

2)    I had a good number of friends from Japan while studying at 
Berkeley (I spent about 1/2 my free time with non-US students - and one 
whom I miss almost every time I think of her --- that's another story 
though). One thing I learned was how strongly ingrained the Japanese 
tendency is to avoid direct contradiction, direct conflict, and to 
refuse to admit a problem exists in the current iteration of a product 
(while promising the next go will be better)..  My contentious style 
would not endear me to EPSON's home office either, I think..

Of course, if they talk to the right people at EPSON USA, they might 
find that I kept some secrets safe for the 2 years since the 1270 was 
introduced... Including some marketing decisions...  Let's just say some 
of the stuff I learned then, showed a clear disjuncture in Japan's 
understanding of the realities of the US market..

>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.
>
LOL cute...

> 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 
>
to go back to your post, EPSON told you who the target market was... not 
the other way around..  I'd say the onus is on EPSON to provide that 
info, not for committee members to bring psychic abilities to the table.

>and have an idea of the user 
>base. 
>
>  
>
Since we're talking about user base,  any chance they included any of 
the PPA people who certified the 1270 as a "Professional Tool"  two 
years ago.  I would hope that after being let down once before that 
EPSON wouldn't ask them to serve on this committee (if so, it's more 
likely as an attempt to curry favor and perhaps get another certification)..

>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. 
>  
>
You might also be frustrated by people who have a voice within the 
target market so strongly criticizing the opinion of your group.. I have 
no idea what the committee told EPSON, but if it was, "no-one" will miss 
the software, your committee has already been proven wrong.. No?

>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.
>
>
>  
>
That's certainly fair, and I thank you for your measured and thoughtful 
response..

Even if we still disagree on some salient points, you've certainly 
earned my respect (not that it'll get you much) for taking the time to 
answer my post in a professional manner..

Keith



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