Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Kodak on the ink-price war-path...with a sense of humor :)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mark² - 08 Feb 2007 05:51 GMT
I've never been a Kodak fan, myself, but their latest move against
competitors goes right after their crown jewels...  You know...their fat
wallets...that are filled by selling the world ink for the price of gold??

For the first time ever...I like Kodak's attitude.  :)

Here's a funny (and interesting) clip from their site, in connection with
their in-price-busting printer move:

'The Stink on Ink"

Might wanna plug your nose and open a window because here comes the Stink on
Ink...

1. For the cost of 80 mL of ink, you could fill up a luxury SUV in Los
Angeles with 32 gallons of gas--that's over 120,000 mL! But unless you're a
duke or dutchess, don't even think about 120,000 mL of ink... that would
cost over $117,000!

2. 750 mL of ink could fill up an empty champagne bottle. But why do that
when you could purchase more than 3 bottles of expensive champagne for the
same price?! Plus, have you ever tasted ink? Though dangerous, it's actually
pretty delicious, but, still, that's really expensive.

3. One 3.4 oz bottle of luxury perfume could keep most women smelling
fabulous for the better part of a year and some women smelling nice for the
better part of a decade. Good luck surviving on 3.4 oz of printer ink for a
year. Might as well smell nice because Chanel costs about 20% less than ink!

4. Did you know that you would need to buy over $22,000 worth of ink to
paint an average house! For that kind of money, you may as well commission
Michelangelo to paint "The Creation of Adam" on your ceiling!

5. Think oil costs you a boat load of greenbacks? Not compared to the price
of ink. One barrel of oil holds 42 gallons and costs approximately $58
buckaroos. Good thing ink doesn't power your car. At more than $155,000 per
barrel and $3,690 per galloon, you'd have to walk, bike, or skip everywhere
you went!

6. Taking a bath in liquid gold may be a fantasy fit for King Midas, but
it's a thrifty proposition compared to a dip in cyan and magenta. The golden
experience runs about $75,000 in the average tub, but an ink plunge costs
over $185,000! And that's not even factoring in the cost of adding bubbles!

7. You're better off getting sick instead of running out of expensive ink.
100 mL of ink costs the same as 1 gallon of cough and flu syrup! That'll
keep the sniffles away until you're 300-years-old!

8. Could one energy drink a day keep the doctor away? Probably not, but it
would give you boundless energy at a fraction of the price of ink. Only 760
mL of ink would buy you more than 370 cans of energy drink--that's a year's
supply! With that much energy, you could run a marathon or just go to a
library and be really annoying!

9. Did you know that it would take $900 million worth of ink to fill up an
Olympic sized swimming pool? You could fill up over 555 Olympic sized
swimming pools with premium bottled water for that price! Or you could just
pocket the $900 million and go on a shopping spree.

:)
Good stuff...and rather depressing...  Let's hope Kodak lights a fire under
the arse of HP, Canon and Epson.
-Mark²

PS- Here's the URL:
http://www.inkisit.com/
Quote is from this page:
http://www.inkisit.com/stinkonink/
The printers in question are:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10581&pq-locale=en_US
Ink price breakdown (pigment ink, no less... Here:
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=10599&pq-locale=en_US

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
       www.pbase.com/markuson

Joseph Meehan - 08 Feb 2007 12:35 GMT
> I've never been a Kodak fan, myself, but their latest move against
> competitors goes right after their crown jewels...  You know...their
> fat wallets...that are filled by selling the world ink for the price
> of gold??
> For the first time ever...I like Kodak's attitude.  :)

   I agree.  I think it might be a good marketing tool as well.  I think
just about everyone is feed up with the high cost of ink and the efforts of
the printer companies to make their printer ink as proprietary as possible.

Signature

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Peter J E Brunning - 08 Feb 2007 18:52 GMT
>> For the first time ever...I like Kodak's attitude.  :)
>
>    I agree.  I think it might be a good marketing tool as well.  I think
> just about everyone is feed up with the high cost of ink and the efforts
> of the printer companies to make their printer ink as proprietary as
> possible.

Agreed... though we might have to start paying a bit more again for
printers, as many are almost given away to capture the ink market!
Siggy - 09 Feb 2007 10:06 GMT
> I've never been a Kodak fan, myself, but their latest move against
> competitors goes right after their crown jewels...  You know...their fat
> wallets...that are filled by selling the world ink for the price of gold??
>
> For the first time ever...I like Kodak's attitude.  :)

8<

Only those with fat wallets wanting to keep them fatter will no doubt
appreciate this news. Unlike me, who still considers even 50% off
another OEM's ink price is still far higher than a well made compatible.

What would make for much more interesting reading would be learn what
'protections' Kodak have in place to prevent the manufacture of
compatibles for their new printers, I wonder?
Little Green Eyed Dragon - 09 Feb 2007 14:53 GMT
> Unlike me, who still considers even 50% off
> another OEM's ink price is still far higher than a well made compatible.

Sure if you don't mind the possible consequences of using compatibles:

Ink fading, printer clogging and the issues related to mismatched
profiles with chosen paper media.
Of course YMMV.

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Siggy - 09 Feb 2007 19:13 GMT
> Sure if you don't mind the possible consequences of using compatibles:
>
> Ink fading, printer clogging and the issues related to mismatched
> profiles with chosen paper media.
> Of course YMMV.

It does indeed.
Little Green Eyed Dragon - 10 Feb 2007 02:00 GMT
> > Sure if you don't mind the possible consequences of using compatibles:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It does indeed.

At least for the next few months or maybe a few years. ;^)

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

CJS - 10 Feb 2007 22:58 GMT
> Sure if you don't mind the possible consequences of using compatibles:
>
> Ink fading, printer clogging and the issues related to mismatched
> profiles with chosen paper media.

You might be interested to read an interview with Henry Wilhelm - the man
behind the company that does the longevity testing for just about every
fine art printer manufacturer on the planet.

http://bermangraphics.com/press/wilhelm.htm

Of note is the section where he talks about a given longevity test result
being valid ONLY for a specific ink / paper combination. When some company
comes out and says "our ink has been shown to last up to 200 years etc" it's
a meaningless statement unless they also specify what paper (and conditions)
the tests are conducted under.

Personally, I use refilled carts in my office printer (to print invoices
etc) - hell, a refil costs me approx 1/10th the cost of a new one - but when
it comes to fine art printing I only use original ink - although I do bring
them in from overseas to save sacrificing arms and legs to local suppliers.
Little Green Eyed Dragon - 11 Feb 2007 00:56 GMT
> > Sure if you don't mind the possible consequences of using compatibles:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> http://bermangraphics.com/press/wilhelm.htm

I read something on that which more or less says the very thing, it was
in Digital photo magazine a long while ago.

> Of note is the section where he talks about a given longevity test result
> being valid ONLY for a specific ink / paper combination. When some company
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> it comes to fine art printing I only use original ink - although I do bring
> them in from overseas to save sacrificing arms and legs to local suppliers.

I don't use inkjets for office stuff, just a monochrome laser. The
blinking ink low light has been that way for over a year. Until I see
gaps I probably won't replace the cartridge. Its produced 1,000's of
prints from the originally supplied cartridge.

I currently have three printers:
R1800
1280 and the HP 1320.

I use the 1280 to make custom brochures, and have a CIS for it which is
currently offline, once I get my office in my basement complete I'll
reinstall it for that stuff, and my per print cost will drop to about 25
cents per color print.

I use the R1800 for any client work up to 13 across.

Signature

Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Kennedy McEwen - 11 Feb 2007 13:09 GMT
>You might be interested to read an interview with Henry Wilhelm - the man
>behind the company that does the longevity testing for just about every
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>a meaningless statement unless they also specify what paper (and conditions)
>the tests are conducted under.

As Wilhelm himself found out the hard way, having made just such an
unqualified endorsement of specific Epson ink/paper combinations a few
years ago and never even considered the issue of whether atmospheric
oxygen would bleach the ink!  His endorsement cost Epson rather a lot in
replacement product and consumables at the time, but it did accelerate
their introduction of encapsulated pigments.
Signature

Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Father Kodak - 20 Feb 2007 01:53 GMT
>Personally, I use refilled carts in my office printer (to print invoices
>etc) - hell, a refil costs me approx 1/10th the cost of a new one - but when
>it comes to fine art printing I only use original ink - although I do bring
>them in from overseas to save sacrificing arms and legs to local suppliers.

How do you accomplish that?

I thought I read somewhere that Epson (?) printers sold in the USA
will not function with imported cartridges.

Father Kodak
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.