Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kodak Challenges HP's Printer Sales Model

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the jig-is-up dept.

Printer 265

Radon360 writes "Kodak has decided to attempt to buck the trend set by HP by offering low cost printers and reasonably priced ink cartridges. Three of their new printers start at $149, with ink cartridges costing $9.99 for a black cartridge and $14.99 for a five color cartridge. To counter, HP has announced a release of lower-priced cartridges, though with less ink and they are still more expensive than Kodak's. It will be a matter of time to see whether Kodak can upset the practice of ink cartridge extortion."

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Twofo GNAA TR0LL first psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893589)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk]

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                              Version 2, June 1991

  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
          59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

    Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.

        c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
        when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
        interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
        announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
        notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
        a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
        these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
        License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
        does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
        the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

    8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

    10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

                                NO WARRANTY

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        Copyright (C)

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
        Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

        Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
        Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

    Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
    `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

    , 1 April 1989
    Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (4, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893599)

I guess if Kodak doesn't underprice the printers, they won't be as hurt by cartridge remanufacturers and cartridge cloners as the outfits that sell printers at a loss, looking to make it up in ink. Still, even at their low prices... everyone loves a bargain. If someone can profitably undercut Kodak on cartridges or DIY refill kits, will they find that they've just changed the tempo of the game rather than changing the game itself?

Re:Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (4, Insightful)

Marc D.M. (630235) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893645)

My only issue with this is that the DIY refills are usually messy and of a lower quality than the original.

I'm looking forward to this as it could pave the way for cheaper photo-printing options.

Re:Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (2, Interesting)

jridley (9305) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894607)

You just need to be careful to buy a printer with carts that are easily refillable. When I had an HP, it was a little messy. When I had an Epson, it was stupidly messy, bottom fill, poppet valves that leaked, ink all over.
I now have a Canon and it's rare for me to spill a single drop.

Lower quality means you've been using crappy 3rd party ink. Buy from a company that formulates ink properly per manufacturer. IMHO good 3rd party inks are at least as good as OEM inks. It's not like the OEMs have some secret process for making ink.

Re:Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (4, Interesting)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893897)

If the price difference between Kodak and the remanufacturers isn't that big, who is going to risk f'ing up their printer prints with garbage remanufactured crap when for a very small bit more they could get guaranteed good OEM ink? I know I wouldn't. It's the huge disparity in pricing right now that drives people to take the risk.

Re:Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894045)

If the price difference between Kodak and the remanufacturers isn't that big, who is going to risk f'ing up their printer prints with garbage remanufactured crap when for a very small bit more they could get guaranteed good OEM ink? I know I wouldn't. It's the huge disparity in pricing right now that drives people to take the risk.

Exactly. Particularly when the printer is $150, and not some $20 piece of garbage that's just a holder for the $40 or $50 cartridge. Nobody cares really about messing up their printer, when you can just get a new one practically for free -- but when the printer is a significant investment, and the replacement cartridges are cheap, who's going to do that? It's penny-wise and pound-foolish at that point to cut corners.

If only the RIAA were listening now... (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894181)

If only the RIAA would take a note from this exercise. Both industries have similar problems. I hope that the consumer is the real winner....

Re:Will People Still Seek Cheaper Alternatives? (2, Informative)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894845)

It's only a risk if your printer is an Epson generally with non-replaceable ink heads. Something like HPs you can buy the shittiest refills you can, and it doesn't matter. Ink head clogged? Oh well, hit it with a little alcohol, nope, new cart. Too bad I only got to refill that black cartrige three times for printing text.

Something else of note though. I find it highly suspicious these sites that have been doing photo ink print comparisons all of a sudden. In the control case they use OEM fresh carts, and OEM paper. Then they turn around, get the cheapest ink refill they can, and use garbage Office Depot paper, or paper that was made for a different printer entirely (the paper is the main factor in these instances). Just my 2 cents on the matter though.

Is Vista a failure twitter? - DON'T THINK SO! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893967)

Check it out twitter: Micro$oft Corp. posted a 65 percent rise in quarterly profit on Thursday, topping Wall Street estimates due to better-than-expected demand for its new Windows Vista operating system.

A net profit of $4.93 billion for the last 3 months, stock up 10% in after hours trading, rocketing Vista sales..yeah "M$" is really dying twitter!

More info here: http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSWE N717320070427 [reuters.com]

Their sales will skyrocket (4, Insightful)

ZoOnI (947423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893631)

I will be buying a Kodak if the cost of both toner and printers is low as well as a minimum reliability.

Expensive! (4, Insightful)

wwpublishing (1093863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893635)

Is it me or does a $15 cartridge sounds expensive. I mean, like you go to a copying a store, and copies are like .03 each. $15 = like 450 pages. One of their ink cartridges can't even print that.

Re:Expensive! (5, Informative)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893667)

Is it me or does a $15 cartridge sounds expensive. I mean, like you go to a copying a store, and copies are like .03 each. $15 = like 450 pages. One of their ink cartridges can't even print that.

The $15 cartridge is for colour. It's $10 for b/w, but it's still more than you'll pay at a copy shop. The copy shop will be using toner-based laser printers, which have a cheaper per-page cost to run. If you're planning to print a lot, get a home laser rather than an inkjet.

Re:Expensive! (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893929)

Seriously! There are always tradeoffs involved. These printers are intended for casual users, who want the convenience of something sitting on their desk but can't justify a big outlay -- and they certainly seem quite reasonably priced given that convenience! Obviously if someone needs to print a 1000 page tome, they might want to take their lunch hour to drop by a copy shop, or invest in a laser printer if they do it often.

From my admittedly uninformed ("casual" :-) viewpoint, these Kodaks seem to really hit a sweet spot though; 3-400 pages or so would probably last me oh, 4 months, and $2-3 a month for home printing, with a fairly modest initial outlay, seems awfully tempting... Granted I'd probably print twice as much if I had a printer at home, but hey....it's still less than a lunch per month! I think it's this "print more once you have it" effect that the ink-cartridge-extortion vendors rely on.

Hmmm.... I wonder if the print quality is OK?

Re:Expensive! (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894789)

In my experience, Inkjets are terrible for casual users. I need to use my printer about once every 3 to 4 weeks. Because it's inkjet, and I use it so infrequently, the cartridge is dried out every time I need to use it. So I've given up on the thing and it sits in a corner. When I need to print something, i'll use the printer at work, or go to the UPS store. For Photos I have Walmart. The next printer I'm going to buy will be a laser, because I don't want to have to worry about the ink drying out. On another note, what happened to dot matrix printers. I remember we had a dot matrix printer and the cartdges (ribbons?) were $5 each and laster for well over 1000 pages.

Re:Expensive! (2, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894171)

I've been very happy with my HP Laser Jet 2600n. It prints great for our minimal everyday use and seems to be pretty economical for printing large quantity color tri-fold adverts for my wife's business. The print quality is wonderful and the variety of paper types that can be used is excellent. I've got it on a wireless print server by Linksys so all of our computers can use it as the default printer.

I would suggest that anyone using a bubble jet investigate a color laser printer. With the toner recycling promos offered by the office supply stores, replacement toners seem to be a lot less expensive than the little tiny bubble jet replacement cartridges.

Who Buys Inkjets? (1)

andersh (229403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894341)

I don't know why people even buy inkjets any longer. Those multifunction printers are awful and expensive to use. I have HP color Laserjets with network cards in all my places of work and at home. They barely cost anything and produce great quality at reasonable prices. The inkjets I have were freebies I received with my Dell orders - I couldn't even make Dell keep them..

Re:Expensive! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894461)

I've said it before, and here I say it again: To hell with inkjets! Laser printers have gotten far more affordable than they once were, and a toner cartridge lasts a helluva lot longer than an ink cart. I've been seeing low-end color lasers lately for about $300 brand new, and you can usually expect a 3rd-party toner cart to cost about half as much as the brand-name ones, while still being top quality. It's not like the crappy inkjet refills where you inject new ink into a used cart, you don't have to worry about dried ink when dealing with a laser.

The other good thing going for laser is the 3rd-party toner suppliers don't need to cut corners on toner quality because they're not selling a $12.99 kit, they're selling a $60 kit where the savings come from bypassing the most expensive part of the brand name supply chain.

Expensive!-Relative. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894953)

Well that may be and I've seen the printout for a color laser. Although cheap is relative. $300 for the low-end and it takes four toner tubs at inkjet cartridge prices apiece. Now if you want copier capability and a fax machine it's double that price (comparable to a multifunction inkjet). There's also the size overall compared to the inkjets. And last inkjet is still going to do photo-quality better than a laser. It's the nature of the process. Only a dye-sublimation or solid-ink would do better and they're expensive or impractical. Also last I checked they're are no large-format color laser printers (greater than 11" x 17", sometimes even in a roll)

Re:Expensive! (1)

Kruid (646582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893751)

what? compared to HP's $35 - $50?

Re:Expensive! (2, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893769)

$15 expensive? A while back I bought an old HP Deskjet for $10 at the flea market, my logic being that if it didn't work it wouldn't be a big deal because I'd enjoy taking it apart. A win, either way. But then I had to buy ink. I ended up spending $80 for black and color, and I'll be shocked if they last to 450 pages. Fortunately the printer works, because I don't think they do refunds on ink.

But anyway, $15 would be pretty sweet given the alternatives.

Re:Expensive! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893849)

That's why I buy Epson and generic ink. It costs me $2.50 for black, $2.75/color(3=RGB). That's $10.75 to fully restock the printer. They last just a tad shorter than the OEM due to dry-out, but have excellent quality.

I believe HPs generally require buying pre-owned cartridges refilled, or refill-kits. I believe it was about $11 for black when I looked it up for a friend.

Re:Expensive! (1)

michrech (468134) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894433)

That's why I buy Epson and generic ink. It costs me $2.50 for black, $2.75/color(3=RGB). That's $10.75 to fully restock the printer. They last just a tad shorter than the OEM due to dry-out, but have excellent quality.

(guy-who-has-had-to-repair-way-too-many-Epson-prin ters)
Yeah. It's too bad, that ink dry-out. Ruins a lot of print heads that are, in some cases, just as expensive (if not more-so) than HP's cartridges.
(/guy-who-has-had-to-repair-way-too-many-Epson-pri nters)

Re:Expensive! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894673)

That's why you don't repair, you replace. The OEM cartridges cost more in the end, and a newer (higher-end on the home line) will offer better quality / more features. There's no point milking the printer's life when its the ink that sucks up money (especially when its OEM ink on older models cost a lot more).

However, I've never had to replace an Epson due to failures. I've used them since the dot-matrix days (early 80s).

Re:Expensive! (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893799)

Yep, it's a rip-off. Comparing apples to apples, the B/W cartridge is $10. For three times that, I can buy a new toner cartridge for my HP laser printer which will print at least 5,000 pages. I'm sure these Kodak cartridges won't last for 1666 pages.

Plus, toner cartridges don't have to worry about drying out with too little use, like inkjet cartridges do.

The simple fact is that inkjet printing is just a bad idea, no matter what the costs are. It can't compete in any way with laser printing technology, except by using marketing to take advantage of peoples' stupidity and shortsightedness.

Re:Expensive! (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894313)

Except for that little bit about color.

I'm tired of hearing how studly and economical the laser printer is in comparison to the ink jet, when they're comparing a color ink jet to a monochrome laser. If it doesn't do color, I don't care how cheap it is.

Re:Expensive! (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894561)

How many TVs do you have in your house? How many cars (especially if there's more than 1 person in your family)? How many computers? How many pairs of shoes do you have? Would you only wear dress shoes because you need those for those few times you go on interviews, or do you have a separate pair for that?

So what makes you think you need one printer for everything? How much color printing do you do anyway?

For me, if I can't leave the printer for two weeks without printing a page, and not have the ink dry up in the printhead, then the printer is utterly useless. This is not a problem in lasers. If I have to buy new color cartridges every time I want to print something, there's no way that printer is even affordable. A $1000 color laser would be a better deal.

Re:Expensive! (0)

Grym (725290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894629)

Kodak Easyshare 5500 [kodak.com]

Show me a laser printer that can, scan, copy, print photos, fax and duplex with a price tag of only $300 and ink refills you can buy in a local retailer. It's simply not possible.

Oh... and that printer is fully Mac compatible. Remember that Mac special $100 discount off of a printer deal? Yeah, this will work with that.

Hands down, (based on it's stated features/pricing) this is the perfect printer for home users. Not only does it have the convenience of an all-in-one printer but it's much cheaper per page than a traditional inkjet. I've actually done quite a bit research recently with the intent to buy a laser printer for the reason you said and because I like the fact that laser printed ink doesn't smear. When I came upon this printer, I simply couldn't justify going laser. Ever since, I've been waiting patiently it to come out.

-Grym

Re:Expensive! (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894751)

Who cares what the initial price is? That's what this whole article is about: initial price vs. consumables cost.

You can get duplex laser printers quite cheap these days. Scanning can be done with something called a "scanner": these are quite cheap as well.

Printing photos? That costs me $0.11 per print at Costco. Why would I want to do that at home when I get better quality at a far lower cost from them?

Fax? Doesn't that require a landline? Who has one of those any more? I have fax capability through send2fax.com, but this of course requires a scanner, which again is easily had for around $50.

Mac compatible? Who cares? How about everything compatible? That's why you get a printer with Postscript support. Which many lasers are. Or at least don't buy a "winprinter".

For cheap duplex laser printing with postscript, you can get a used HP LaserJet 2200 on ebay for around $100 now. Add $50 for a JetDirect card and you have a network printer. $30 will get you a cartridge good for 5,000 pages, which will not dry up on you if you don't use if often enough.

BTW, I don't see anything on that Kodak printer page about an ethernet connection. What good is a printer that can only be connected to one computer?

Re:Expensive! (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894715)

>The simple fact is that inkjet printing
>is just a bad idea, no matter what the
>costs are. It can't compete in any way
>with laser printing technology, except
>by using marketing to take advantage of
>peoples' stupidity and shortsightedness.

      What a complete load. Ink-jet probably can't ever match the cost-per-page of laser. But even a $75 ink-jet will run rings around any conventional laser printer for photographs.

      Brett

Re:Expensive! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894797)

The simple fact is that inkjet printing is just a bad idea, no matter what the costs are. It can't compete in any way with laser printing technology, except by using marketing to take advantage of peoples' stupidity and shortsightedness.

I really don't think that's a universal case.

Laser printing has many advantages, but I still keep an inkjet around for photos. I just saw someone's fancy new color laser today and it's still clearly inferior to the inkjet photo prints that I get with my inkjet. To get a laser that's competitive in quality is prohibitively priced. In other words, if you care about photo quality for something that is consumer-affordable, then you'll have to do inkjet if you don't want to shlep over to a Kinko's or the like for every print. I think energy consumption on lasers is pretty high too.

I don't print often with my inkjet, between print sessions, I just wrap it in a big bag to protect it from the elements and put it in a closet.

Re:Expensive! (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894915)

I saved myself the intial $100+ cost of the photo printer and hassle of bagging my ink cartridges (you're kidding, right?? what a fucking hassle) by doing my photo printing online. Most photo sites offer free shipping, to boot. Of course, I don't print that many photos, because my photo archival is done on a computer, instead of a photo book, and there's a few rare photos in photo frames about my house.

Re:Expensive! (2, Interesting)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894999)

The simple fact is that inkjet printing is just a bad idea, no matter what the costs are. It can't compete in any way with laser printing technology, except by using marketing to take advantage of peoples' stupidity and shortsightedness.

Coming from someone who has a color laser printer at home and loves it, I can't fully agree.

I may well buy one of these new kodak printers just for printing photos. I'm currently under the impression that you can't get good photo-paper prints from laser printers because they typically melt the glossy emulsion.

The printer I have is the Okidata 5500 [okidata.com] . It cost $400 after a $200 mail in rebate (which I did get back in a month or two) and I haven't had to replace a toner cartridge yet*.

They are 'starter' cartridges but I've gone through two or three reams so far on them. Anyway, it can't be beat for copy paper printouts. I just want to print out photos for framing on occasion inkjets seem to do that better.

Kodak's little program here may mean I actually buy one instead of hitting the kiosks at Walmart or a photo store.

*Not counting that messy incident when I realized that the toner cartridges are two seperate pieces, and that the 'lock/unlock' switch didn't lock it in the printer, but locked the halves together. That cost me $120 and an hour of cleanup.

Re:Expensive! (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894319)

...my HP ink cartridges are rated at exactly 450 pages actually. Of course. the problem there is that they're closer to $50 each, not $15.

About time! (3, Insightful)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893659)

Hurray for Kodak! It appears to be attempting to turn things around and be competitive again after years of lacklustre performance and seemingly rudderless operation. The acquisition of Creo put them in a good position in the prepress workflow biz, and now with this announcement maybe we'll have a reason to buy Kodak again at the consumer level. I look forward to trying one of their printers.

Re:About time! (2, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893847)

Hear hear!

In their defence, you'd be rudderless too if you were a buggy-whip manufacturer after the Model T was introduced. The multi-mexapixel camera made them pretty obselete, but it is good to see them move this direction, especially since HP have turned into such a bunch of wankers. It's a pity about HP too, they used to make such great calculators, I still have my two 32SIIs that I wouldn't trade for any other calculator that I know of. (Yes, I've seen the 33S, it looks like some dorks from the marketing department got a hold of it and mangled it.)

Back on topic though, this seems like a pretty natural choice for Kodak, I wonder how long they've been planning this, because it's the first I've heard of them in the news since they got out of the analog camera business. It seems like the couple of years that's passed since then would be enough time to come up with a working printer and ink business model and implement it.

Re:About time! (1)

ScrappyLaptop (733753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894567)

Hey, now!

HP used to make great LaserJets, too, all the way up to and including the 4-series and maybe some of the 5 series, you insensitive clod!

Re:About time! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894821)

Kodak has their hands in a lot more pies than you seem to think. They're still the ones making all the photo paper for all those digital prints you get printed out from your digital camera. And they also make pretty good digital cameras. I have a C875 and it's a really great camera. Kodak saw the light years ago, and started to change their business model when they saw that film cameras was going to be a dead market.

Digital Cameras (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893931)

They've built up a very nice range of consumer level digital cameras, and they did it before they disappeared with chemical photography.

Re:About time! (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894815)

perhaps Kodak is trying to pickup as the new "Polaroid". They got nailed on instant photography 30 years ago and because of patents never got into the instant developing thing. In the other hand, they spent their time focusing on backroom photo developing.. most of the photo developing machines are Kodak or Fuji. The Kodak ones have been using digital correction for some time... so with the shift to personal photo printing, they need to make the money on PAPER and supplies. I think they see the push of inkjets against stores that develop film... and are adjusting accordingly. They have to win on paper, ink, and cameras to stay successful.

Cups? (0)

datadriven (699893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893691)

Does it work with cups, some of don't have _ANY_ windows machines.

Re:Cups? (1)

0123456789 (467085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894147)

I bought a 5300 a week ago; it works very well on a Mac. I haven't attempted using it yet with Linux (I have Ubuntu installed on another machine), but the Mac printer system is cups? I wonder if it will be as simple as copying the .ppd file over to the linux machine?

Going to buy 2 right away (5, Informative)

Jason Straight (58248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893727)

Just my way of telling the other printer makers that ink isn't worth $30,000/gal

Re:Going to buy 2 right away (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894123)

Great--you'll be glad to know that there is nothing stopping them from jacking it up after you, and many others, buy it.

Re:Going to buy 2 right away (1)

slazzy (864185) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894669)

Since it still only is going to cost around a hundred bucks, there's not much stopping him (and everyone else) from throwing it in the trash if Kodak breaks it's promise of reasonable priced ink. I'll continue using my Samsung Laser printer in any case.

Re:Going to buy 2 right away (1, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894175)

Are you a woman? That's the logic that says "I don't *need* this, but it's on sale so I'll get it."

Yes, I /am/ married.

Re:Going to buy 2 right away (2, Funny)

epp_b (944299) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894913)

Are you a woman?
Are you new here?

Lexmark (0)

dg41 (743918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893737)

I'm looking at you, Lexmark...

Hope for their success, but... (2, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893747)

I have real doubts they will be able to compete with that model. People's natural tendency is to seek the cheap (or easy) route now, giving far less weight to the long term.

I know I have a hard time bringing myself to, for instance, buy things in larger containers....I know it's cheaper in the long term, but I don't like putting out a bunch of cash now.

I also knowingly do other equally irrational things along the same lines....for instance, if I am standing at one corner of a football field, and have to get to the opposite corner without walking on the field, I will always walk along the long side first. It gets me closer to my destination quicker, even though the overall distance is the same. Irrational, but I can't help it.

Re:Hope for their success, but... (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893861)

Ummm... apparently the millions that shop at Costco (www.costco.com), would disagree with your philosophy. Even though the masses aren't exactly brilliant, most do not limit the definition of "cheap" to short term, but do consider the long term viability... or at least they do when the salesmen does the thinking for them and explains why Kodak is actually cheaper even if the initial price tag sounds higher.

I have real doubts they will be able to compete with that model. People's natural tendency is to seek the cheap (or easy) route now, giving far less weight to the long term.

I know I have a hard time bringing myself to, for instance, buy things in larger containers....I know it's cheaper in the long term, but I don't like putting out a bunch of cash now.

Re:Hope for their success, but... (1)

Radres (776901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893865)

Strange football field analogies aside, all it would take is for Kodak to advertise the cost of their ink cartridges somewhere on the little flyer that electronics stores put next to the printer. Anyone who has owned an ink jet printer is well aware of the price gouging involved. Starting at $150 for a Kodak ink jet doesn't seem unreasonable; you would make back the money you spent over a $100 printer on one cartridge refill.

Re:Hope for their success, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893893)

"I know I have a hard time bringing myself to, for instance, buy things in larger containers...."

Depends if you use all of it or not or what your financial situation is. Makes no sense to outlay $20 for 3 gallons of laundry detergeant if you're single (you read /., great chances) and do laundry like once a blue moon (you read /., low chances). For poorer individuals, probably could make up the difference with the $10 container and put the other $10 to better use buying stuff like food.

Then again, yeah, I know. Cross multiplication, or pulling out your cell phone to make sure that $9.99 for 85 bags or $7.99 for 65 bags is a better bargain.

Look, if you can't even bother now, you're not the target market Kodak is aiming at with their little business strategy.

"[...]I will always walk along the long side first. It gets me closer to my destination quicker, even though the overall distance is the same. Irrational, but I can't help it."

Bah. Now I know you're lying. You're a geek, read /., and can't fight. You know that if you'd cross to the opponents side of the field first, you'd get your butt kicked by the visiting team. I mean, hell, you even say "walk." Even on your home field sideline, you'd run just to be sure.

Then again, your instincts to self-preservation ain't all that grand.

Anyways, personally, I'd rather see a price comparison with laser. In terms of cost (toner is expensive but inexpensive compared to inkjet ink), convenience (lower maintenance, less time pulling and cleaning cartridges), and speed (laser is usually faster), laser rocks. Initial outlay is far lower too; you can pick up networked single purpose laser printers b&w for under $90 these days (Brother 2040N if I recall what I saw in the store 2 Christmas's ago). Even color laser printers are becoming bargains. I think I saw a few hit below the $300 mark with rebates.

Re:Hope for their success, but... (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893991)

Well, if you don't believe that people generally consider the long term peiorities equally to short term ones, please explain procrastination.

Same thing.

And by the way, either you were joking, or misunderstood the football field analogy. Maybe I should have said "had to walk ten blocks south and 2 blocks east". The tendency is to walk the direction that is most direct initially (the ten blocks), even though it doesn't get you there any quicker.

Re:Hope for their success, but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894295)

People's natural tendency is to seek the cheap (or easy) route now, giving far less weight to the long term

I agree as well but people have been buying these cheap printers and expensive ink for years. I believe the average person knows that the ink is expensive and that is why there is a booming refill market. The majority of people looking for a relatively cheap home ink jet have learned their lesson on their own, a company selling a modle that is the opposite approach will make it more well known.

Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893771)

Cannon has been doing this for years now. From what I understand they've mostly been a camera company and printing was just icing on their cake. It seems HP really is a printer company, not the innovation powerhouse of yesteryear.

Re:Too bad (2, Interesting)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893981)

At BJ's club, canon's 3e cartridges (fairly common) cost about $11 for B&W, and about $25 for all 3 color cartridges.

Note the color cartridges are discrete, which is slightly cheaper in the long run.

It is not extortion (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893773)

The prices are not hidden. Any reasonable printer test includes cost per page figures.
People seem to fall for this nonetheless. I have no idea why. Are basic algebra skills that scarce today? Or do people not care how much they pay?

Re:It is not extortion (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893833)

How can they produce a realistic "cost per page" if it is unknown how many pages it will print in its lifetime? All they can show is the marginal cost, not the average total cost.

Re:It is not extortion (3, Insightful)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894055)

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ink cartridges, not the printer.

HP releases ink cartridge page yield using ISO standard pages at http://www.hp.com/pageyield [hp.com]

Re:It is not extortion (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894227)

Yes, I was talking about both, which seems the relevant figure. If you print lots of pages, Kodak's model is cheaper, if very few, HP's would be.

Re:It is not extortion (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894383)

Yea. If you print less than 400 pages before the printer breaks, then you're better off with HP. But personally, I print about 400 pages in two weeks. If it's breakin' that fast, I AM getting a refund.

Re:It is not extortion (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894253)

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ink cartridges, not the printer.

It's both. Printers wear out, too. Why do you think the $30 Walmart printers are $30? Not for longevity.

Vote with your wallet people..... (5, Insightful)

budword (680846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893787)

Kodak here I come. I'm tired of large corparations taking advantage of the flock because we ACT like sheep. Put HP printers out of business until they get the message. I believe I read (maybe here) that HP printer cartriges had a chip on them that would report to the computer that they were out of ink, when in fact they were not, to get you to buy another over priced cartrige. Hurt them where it counts, or they will never change. I've been buying canon printers, and canon ink (rather than slightly cheaper 3rd party ink) to try to reward them for not gouging me on the ink. I'll look into kodak next time I need a printer. Now if they have native linux drivers, Kodak would be a done deal. They won't change until we hurt them where it counts. Next time you buy a none HP printer, email them to tell them why you won't buy their stuff anymore. http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/feedbac k.do;jsessionid=GxCTB6m1p2fJcoG63U7U0P1YV8VQVD3QNP 177At6udUrxCMjeG6K!711870732 [hp.com]

Re:Vote with your wallet people..... (4, Funny)

PinkPanther (42194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893829)

Kodak here I come. I'm tired of large corparations taking advantage of the flock because we ACT like sheep

...I'm tired of acting like sheep. C'MON EVERYONE, let's go buy XXX instead!!!

;-)

Re:Vote with your wallet people..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894051)

>C'MON EVERYONE, let's go buy XXX instead!!!

Screw that. I'll download my pr0n for free instead.

Apple printers! (1)

rmdyer (267137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893795)

Now if Apple's Steve Jobs would release a line of somewhat pricey, but sleek looking ink jets with reusable ink cartridges at 99 cent per refill (at an Apple store), then we would be in business!

I can dream... :)

Re:Apple printers! (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893933)

If that's a viable business model, create a startup.

Re:Apple printers! (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894097)

Do you have a Steve Jobs I can borrow?

Re:Apple printers! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894527)

Do you have a Steve Jobs I can borrow?

No, but I can throw a couple of Joe Jobs your way. Just gimme your Social and I'll take care of it.

They better have a good marketing team (2, Insightful)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893801)

Breaking from a paradigms is always hard, but breaking from a paradigm like this one will be near impossible. People don't naturally calculate out what is the best for the amount of time they believe they will own the printer, they don't ever realize that they're tied into buying HPs ink for the rest of thier lives. Kodak will have to have one hell of a marketing team to pull this off.

Funny - Canon already does this. (3, Informative)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893851)

I can get ink for a typical Canon printer for a couple of dollars because the head and tank are separate.

The price for ink bought online via InkDaddy or other sites for the Canon printers runs about 1-1.5 cents a page, or almost exactly what the cheapest laser printers cost(black), and under 3-5 cents a page for color.

We can do better (1, Interesting)

cyberbob2351 (1075435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893825)

When someone gives me a printer and paper solution that is ink and tonerless, I will be happy.

Maybe it needs some significant advances in nanotechnology, but imagine a lattice structure precisely "grown" in a chemical bath so an exact mesh thickness. Also, imagine a printer that will somehow rearrange the lattice elements to form some kind of waveguide resonance that will create different color mixtures. Also, imagine a way to easily erase these markings.

However, it is vital to have some cheap printing solution intended entirely for archival purposes only, and certainly this should be write-once, permanent as possible (to survive any civilization-earasing holocausts that require evidence for extraterrestrial archaeologists), and incredibly cheap.

Maybe the best solution is to mix and match the usage and need of printers, in particular make an LCD screen dominated workplace and operating systems so documents needed only on a temporary basis can be phased out. We print out too many damned flyers and memos.

Oh yeah, and save the trees, and all that jazz.....

looking for LED printer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894695)

HP supplies are not too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893855)

The reason why HP carts are pricy because they also hold the inkjet heads. If a HP head clogs, all you have to do is replace the inkjet cartridge. If nozzles clog on other printers, you have to buy a new printer, if the usual self cleaning routines so not work.

Anyway, cheap laser printers which print out 2000 or more pages before the toner cart ($70) needs replaced cost under $100.

Re:HP supplies are not too bad... (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894753)

If a HP head clogs, all you have to do is replace the inkjet cartridge. If nozzles clog on other printers, you have to buy a new printer, if the usual self cleaning routines so not work.
****

Really? My Canon's head is removeable. Dunk it in some cleaning solution and let it dry overnight - good as new. I have "fixed" my $39 printer twice in the last three years and it still prints. Total cost for three years printing? Not even $100 including paper. Only now, after thousands of pages, is the print head wearing out. But I can buy a new one for $40 if I had to.

HP is *such* a dumb move. A shame, too, since their older laser printers(4, 5, 6 series) are fantastic workhorses that print for lower cost than anyone else.

What a concept... (5, Interesting)

epp_b (944299) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893901)

Well, it turns out that building your products in a way that adds value for your customers is better than intentionally creating a way to continually rip them off (ie: building as much of the printer's "brains" as possible into each ink cartridge)! What a surprise!

Re:What a concept... (1)

cheebert (639937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894859)

The rub is that the profit margins on consumables is mega high, in some cases in the 1000% range. There is a saying that I used to hear in distribution that if a vendor could legally lock consumers into buying consumables only from them, they would give away the printer. The good news is that this isn't legal and 3rd party consumable vendors abound. I'm actually VERY happy with my new Xerox Phaser 8500DN with those little wierdly shaped resin/wax sticks instead of toner or ink. Though Xerox wants approx $30/each for color and $15/each for black. With an expectation of 1000 pages per cartrige this is still pretty expensive. Thank god there are third party supplied in the $8/each range for color and less for black. Might I suggest you checkout Media Street's Niagra system...with 6oz bottles (per color) I can do a massive amount of photo grade printing for VERY little money. The downside is you MUST use it fairly frequently or the nozzles will eventually clog. That and the extra room for the external ink tanks. My Epson Photo 900 costs me $125 for a set of six 6oz bottles...but even after 1000 8.5x11 thumbnail pages (family album restoration project) my tanks are still only 1/2 down. /brian chee

biznat3h (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893905)

And Fi8ancial Nigger Association

Photo printer copier scanner not a printer (2, Informative)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893915)

My Epson C86 is a wonderful desktop inkjet. Discount ink is $10 for extra capacity black and $8 for each of the other 3 colors. A new C88 is about $80 retail at Staples.

Does it scan? No
Does it scan pictures? No
Does it print w/o a computer? No

And when it breaks I toss it out and get another one.

Re:Photo printer copier scanner not a printer (1)

Sublmnl (868393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894169)

And for some reason this doesn't get a high mod score. I also use Epson...RX620. Expensive but it copies, scans and can be used without a computer. Ink costs are in line with that of the new Kodak. 14 dollars for large black cartridge and 8 bucks for color. And lest I say that the image quality is outstanding! Buy the warranty for three years and complain after that time that images aren't printing as they should and you'll get a brand new printer. And I guarantee you that after three years they won't print as they should---just a fact. You'll be given a credit with Staples for a new model at the price you paid. And for that amount you will get a newer model with better specs considering the time of purchase and the time of complaint. Who says a warranty isn't worth it?

Re:Photo printer copier scanner not a printer (4, Insightful)

NETHED (258016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894985)

Thanks for driving the costs up for everyone. A warranty is just that, its not a end-of-life replacement program. I would chide you further, but I know I'll get modded to oblivion anyway.

Typo? (2, Informative)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 7 years ago | (#18893927)

Shouldn't that be:

Kodak has decided to attempt to buck the trend set by HP by offering low cost printers and outrageously over-priced ink cartridges

How is this new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893939)

I've got a canon printer sitting here, with the ink coming in small, dumb, cheap cartridges, and a separately replacable printer head. It's about a year old.
As a bonus, it's also rather good.

No CD/DVD printing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18893993)

I REALLY wanted to buy one of Kodak's new printers. Unfortunately they made the mistake of not providing the ability to print to discs. What shame! The cost to add disc printing capability would have been minimal. I just bought a crappy little HP printer that came with a disc load of useless, bloated, poorly designed software. It even included backup software that caused my CD/DVD drives to disappear from the system! For the record, the cost per gallon of ink for this printer comes to about $8,000. What a scam, but still better than Lexmark!

Is there an old joke here someplace? (2, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894043)

I used my Lexmark to print out five dollar bills, but I still couldn't afford ink refills.

Most reliable printer I ever owned (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894057)

The most reliable printer I ever owned was a citizen 120d
Never ever had a problem with clogged pores or not working - even leaving it months without use and coming back would miraculously find it still works - just like a typewriter.

Ribbons were as cheap as biro pens.
For 99% of the printouts I need, I could still happily use one.

Ink prices (5, Informative)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894127)

Dye Ink costs about 1 to 15$ per gallon to manufacture. Milled ink (methanol milled nano-particulate pigment ink) is about 3x the cost.

I used to work for Kodak.

They can dump better ink at lower prices all over the market. HP does NOT want to get into an ink pricing war- everyone would lose.

Re:Ink prices (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894303)

Wah!

It needs to be bad for everyone. Although I dont understand why anyone even wants Inkjet anymore for anything but a CD label printer.

Xerox full color lasers are almost $200.00 with a full set of toner carts. I have ran at home for a year now printing at least 5-10 pages a day between and still have not ran the toner below 1/2 yet.

The bets part, I can shut off the printer and let it sit there for years and turn it on and print right away. Every inkjet would be completely dead as the heads would be clogged and dryed out.

Yes nest year I will have to pay $300.00 for the high capacity toner cartridges, but then I'll have 4 years of "ink" at that point and will probably throw away the printer before it needs a refill.

Not bad for a network laser that has a photo quality mode that looks fantastic works with linux as it's a real postscript printer.

Does anyone even make a postscript ethernet inkjet?

Re:Ink prices (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894979)

I really haven't had such significant problems with ink drying like that, and I have left my inkjet printer unused for months at a time. The only special treatment I do is to wrap the printer in a large bag for storage in a closet. Years is silly because if you print that rarely, then you don't need a printer.

For general use, laser is fine, and that's what I use most of the time. Still, for quality photos, I'm not going to pretend that an inexpensive laser is going to do that as well as my inkjet can for picture quality.

BTW, just to add something off the wall, at the one desk I use for printing various things, I have four types of printers associated to just one computer. I can actually justify a fifth printer.

Kodak? Printers? (2, Funny)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894163)

Get real, this is yet another last gasp attempt by Kodak to find something, anything that can replace the photographic film business that was their bread and butter for so many decades.

Re:Kodak? Printers? (5, Insightful)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894365)

Kodak has been in the printer business for a long, long time. Though mostly at the enterprise level as far as I know. I remember seeing Kodak-branded laser printers in the 90s.

Why shouldn't they get into new business? Are they supposed to just close up shop because film is dead? And they are nowhere near a "last gasp." Kodak's a big company with many assets. Though they have slumped badly in the last seven years they still rake in $13.5B in sales.

Re:Kodak? Printers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894831)

Ummm .... Kodak has been rocking the photography printing industry for quite some time. Check out ML-500,9810,6850. All have much respect in the pro/onsite industry.

Laser, laser, laser (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894195)

The only reason I still have an inkjet is to print CD/DVD's, via the Epson R300. Everything else goes through the $300 Dell color laser. 1 year, ~500 pages (1/3 of those full page color), and I'm at 90% capacity left.

Huh? (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894251)

In a counter-move, H-P announced Tuesday that it will also be introducing new lower-price cartridges. But these new low-end cartridges will work only on future printers (and a few very recent models). And they will hold less ink than today's standard. Plus, they will still cost more than Kodak's cartridges: $14.99 for black and $17.99 for the combined color versions.

Huh?

In Search of ExceLunch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894667)

Huh?

It does seem odd. But it all becomes clear when you realize that HP sent their whole marketting team for tuition at SCO.

And this is news how? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18894273)

People must not look beyond HP printers much, if they think this sort of thing is new. Canon has been selling dirt-cheap ink refills for years.

Case in point: I bought a Canon i475D for about $40 in 2004. The ink cartridges are easy to find, and cost $5.99 for black and $13.99 for color (at Newegg, about $1 more at B&M). It is far from the first Canon printer to feature a system like this.

If anything, Kodak is late to the game, and HP just continues to suck.

Epson has also been selling relatively cheap ink cartridges for a while now.

The printer-ink thing has to crack soon (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894411)

The early ink-jet printer patents should be expiring soon. The first inkjet printers were developed in 1976, and HP's original DeskJet shipped in 1998. We'll probably see a flood of no-brand-name printers using generic ink over the next few years. That's what happened to laser printers when those patents expired years ago.

Re:The printer-ink thing has to crack soon (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894609)

Unless they continue to get away with the encrypted-chip business to keep clone makers out.

buck the trend set by HP? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894495)

I suppose this depends on your perspective. Since the 1960's Kodak has been pioneering the concept of selling the printer cheap, i.e. instamatic camera, and reaping the profit on the ink, i.e. film. Certainly HP did not set this trend. If anything, Xerox set this trend by primarily selling toner and service.

One thing I want to know, knowing how Kodak is some times, is if the plan is sell low quality printers at a relatively high price, knowing full well they will break in a year or two. I would much rather throw away printer cartridges rather than printers. OTOH, I know that will expensive cartridges, and cheap printer, people throw away printers when the cartridge is empty.

In the end people do seem to buying the wrong printer for the job. If you are printing a ream a week, it is insane to buy an inkjet, yet I see people doing so all the time. For a few pages a day, though, an inkjet can be a very good value.

How much ink.. (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894641)

Yeah.. they forgot to mention that the ink is probably enough for 50-100 pages. Go LASER, you won't be sorry.

ink is only part of why HP printers suck (1)

Wormholio (729552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18894835)

The high price of ink cartridges is only part of why I don't want to buy another HP printer. The last one I bought has some serious software problems.

At some point a month or so after I brought it home it suddenly stopped working with an error message saying "incompatible print cartridge". It was the same cartridge it came with! It turns out this was a known problem and you have to upgrade the firmware AND clean the cartridge contacts (covering all bases like that makes me suspect they never knew the real cause of the problem).

I could accept a one-time problem which could be fixed, but it still doesn't work. Every time I turn the Mac on it's forgoten that the printer was connected. Simply adding it again fails, and I have to reset the entire printing system. Installing the latest drivers does not correct the problem, even after going through the extended 25 step process they recommend to remove all sorts of "old" files from 13 different places.

And while browsing HP's web pages to diagnose the problem it asks if I would participate in a quality control survey. Okay, I agree to do it. Two pages later, it seems to have forgotten it ever asked, because the same annoying pop-up is back. Over and over again.

The ink is only part of the problem, because the software to drive the printer doesn't work.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?