Digital BW, The Print

As well reasoned as this post may be, and I do agree that the money is in the ink, I cannot agree with the assessment. The money, from the ink, comes primarily from those little cartridges that Epson sells by the tens of thousands every day. Like film, ink sales are driven not by professionals but by the vast number of amateurs and home users.



If Epson actively supported the professional fine art printing market, rather than trying to regulate it, I propose that their ink sales would increase.




Epson either has not thought this through properly or they are taking a calculated risk that, in the end, I do not think will work. I am the chair of a photography program at a university in Austin, Texas. We have extensive digital imaging labs to support our curriculum (incidentally, we also continue to support a complete wet darkroom operation). We currently have eight 4800/4880's, two 7800's, and one 9880 in operation. Our ink costs exceed $15k per semester.




We enjoy no special discounts on ink or paper despite the volume. There is no local service provider; if we have a problem with a printer, that our lab manager cannot resolve, we are forced to either replace the printer or pay for a service call out of Houston or Dallas. We enjoy no enhanced services whatsoever, despite our investment.




I hope someone at Epson is reading these posts because we are actively looking for alternatives. We tested Canon printers but they were something of a disaster (paper trays so flim
sy and poorly designed as to laughable, bad software, and insanely poor documentation) and we could not use our RIP's to drive them because Canon has a serious black box mentality. We're currently looking at HP (we've been using a Z3100 in my studio, K2 Press, for about a year now; excellent machine but finicky; Walker, I'd give almost anything for a well build printer devoid of unnecessary features that don't work properly). For the time being, we will stay with Epson hardware but we are purchasing refillable clear carts and bulk ink from Cone.




Epson has lost $30k in ink sales and may lose their hardware sales to us. More importantly, Epson will lose their position as the printer of choice when students make their own purchases. Compare that to MacOnCampus, a really well thought out program where companies like Mamiya, Sekonic, Toyo, ProPhoto and Eizo sell discounted products to students and begin a relationship that may continue throughout their careers.




My point is simple: Epson's draconian attitude is working against them. I see the effects every day. If I were a stock holder in Epson I'd be screaming. There is no sense of partnership, no communication (I have never, not once, been asked by any employee of Epson what I thought about their stuff, or if I had feedback or ideas,or--wonder of wonders, if there was anything they could do for us...).




Long story short, you can talk about business strategy all day long but if the focus is only on the bottom line you will 
ultimately lose. As Yvon Chouinard has said, you start the climb as an asshole and you end the climb as an asshole. If Epson followed Patagonia's business model we'd all benefit and, I believe, Epson would make more money.







Bill Kennedy


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 4:06 am
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?


























    

            
            


      
      
The money is in the ink.  They have every right (and, in fact,  

obligation) to defend their investment.  You have two basic choices.  

Develop, produce and sell a printer for which you will not require  

people to be bound to your ink.  That will be an expensive printer if  

you want a sensible commercial return. Or convince Epson there is a  

big enough, profitable enough, market for them to produce (or brand  

and distribute) an Epson range of B&W dedicated inks and so open up  

their printer architecture to higher order Epson K printing (they've  

already gone 3K).  They're never going to intentionally open up to x- 

brand ink - they'd be stupid to do so. (I'm surprised they haven't  

bothered to shut down QTR in some manner -  be thankful for that  

little gem.)  The bottom line is likely that they have explored higher  

o
rder Epson K inks and decided it's not commercially viable because  

you/we won't pay enough for the ink. 3K was a well thought out balance.



On 16 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Tyler Boley wrote:



>

>

> I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support  

> contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for  

> Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can  

> not offer Epson support, their market is probably halved at least,  

> so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make  

> prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well.  

> It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are  

> a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to  

> assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with  

> protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are  

> not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win"  

> scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political  

> climate.

> Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to  

> get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases  

> to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art  

> photographic printing.

>



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





 

    
  

    
    


    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    


 






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