Digital BW, The Print

Hi

And on and on.  Truth be known most of us will buy the printer that 
is most cost effective for level of quality we need and pursue inks 
that are easy to use and provide good gamut, deep blacks and 
longevity regardless of brand.  I am thankful that Epson has provided 
in a very few years of development products that exceed that which I 
hoped for only a few years ago.  Yet, if the new 17" Canon 12 ink 
printer does well on matt and glossy media with excellent resolution, 
wide gamut and great longevity I will consider it for my next 
printer.  Yes, Canon probably has the same razor blade marketing 
strategy.  So be it.  Great printer and great ink.  In the long run 
no 3rd party ink developer will further progress in this area like 
Epson, Canon or HP will out of the need to be competitive and grab 
market share.

My 2 cents worth

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Heath" 
<lgheath@...> wrote:
>
> Seems to me, patently obvious what Epson is doing here.  They have 
produced an instrument that is highly sophisticated with capabilities 
of producing near photo quality pictures of the great longevity.  
They cannot, in their current chosen market segment, charge the 
actual profitable cost for producing an instrument of this 
sophistication, and expect to have any worthwhile market share, save 
those in high end commercial printing establishments, which would be 
small and potentially non-profitable.  So, they have chosen to try 
and expand their market by giving the product away, then make their 
profit in the consumables, i.e. the ink, for which they charge highly 
exorbitant prices once the consumer is locked into a product.  The 
marketplace has shown that there are manufacturers of ink and or 
cartridges that can be much more than competitive with Epson as far 
as the cost of producing inks and cartridges is concerned.
> 
> Epson has simply selected a bad marketing strategy and in an 
attempt to recover lost profits is simply playing the legal card in 
an attempt to force some competitors out of the market and to force 
the market, many of which are highly cost-conscious and procured the 
product because of its low initial price, to procure consumables at 
highly inflated prices directly for Epson, thereby profiting Epson's 
bottom-line.
> 
> In the end, I believe Epson has shot itself in the foot by pursuing 
this market strategy and by pursuing legal remedies against its 
competitors as well as trying to trap consumers in this way in the 
first place.  I for one, can tell you that I will not be purchasing 
any Epson printer products in the future even though the current 
Epson products that I use are of good quality and produce excellent 
results.  I most certainly will seek printer products, in other 
markets in future.
> 
> Larry Heath
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Wendel White 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> 
> 
>   So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a 
unique product,
>   we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the 
patent?
> 
>   Wendel
> 
>   > 
>   > The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
>   > way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
>   > variations or future changes no matter how distant from the 
origonal
>   > concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
>   > 
>   > Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than 
any
>   > small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition 
just by
>   > creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
>   > temporarily effective though.
> 
> 
> 
>