The Printing Industry Wakes Up
March 26, 2007 8:03 AM Subscribe
Steath InkJet Printer Could Rock Industry I know that once your desktop printer reached a certain quality, you probably stopped caring about printing news at all. But suddenly there are a few breakthroughs to get excited about. Kodak's first inkjet printers have cut ink cartridge prices in half, Zink doesn't use ink at all and will fit in your pocket and now an Australian start-up is announcing a $200 printer that will print a page a second. And the inkjet connection to nanotechnology won't just mean cheaper printers. People are using inkjet heads to print microchips and even human cells. Fab@Home is trying to replicate the Altair phenomenon with 3D printers, and you can even get a ZPrinter 450 industrial-strength 3D printer for less than $40,000. How long before the word print means serving yourself the latest Stephen King, a pair of glasses or even a new kidney?
"We can't even imagine all the new uses for ZINK," Wicker said
Yeah, me either.
Cutting ink cartridge prices in half is only 1/3 of the problem. They could eliminate another 1/3 by cutting the the prices in half again and the last 1/3 by making inkjet printout look like bleeding ass.
Fabbing, though--that's fab.
posted by DU at 8:12 AM on March 26, 2007
Yeah, me either.
Cutting ink cartridge prices in half is only 1/3 of the problem. They could eliminate another 1/3 by cutting the the prices in half again and the last 1/3 by making inkjet printout look like bleeding ass.
Fabbing, though--that's fab.
posted by DU at 8:12 AM on March 26, 2007
No wait, apparently technology has caught up with my comment: Inkjet printouts already look like bleeding ass. Now they have to reverse that.
posted by DU at 8:13 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by DU at 8:13 AM on March 26, 2007
Instead of printing iron-on transfers, now you can just dump your laundry right into the printer, where it will wash, sort, fold, and emboss it with the ironic slogan or cartoon doodle of your choosing!
posted by hermitosis at 8:19 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by hermitosis at 8:19 AM on March 26, 2007
I'm surprised people still buy inkjet printers. Besides grandmothers with umpteen photos of toddlers and kittens, who uses these things?
posted by dobbs at 8:25 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by dobbs at 8:25 AM on March 26, 2007
I do. I think we paid something like $60 for an all-in-one inkjet printer/scanner/copier, a couple years ago. ::shrug::
posted by Foosnark at 8:27 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by Foosnark at 8:27 AM on March 26, 2007
You can almost imagine the whole world beginning to look like a MySpace page, thanks to ZINK.
This is satire, right? Please?
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 8:38 AM on March 26, 2007
This is satire, right? Please?
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 8:38 AM on March 26, 2007
I love my Canon inkjet printer for printing out photos and such. I like it. I guess I'm just not as cool as dobbs since I find it useful.
posted by Roger Dodger at 8:40 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by Roger Dodger at 8:40 AM on March 26, 2007
From the first link:
An Australian entrepreneur betting his company on a nanotech-fueled, consumer inkjet printer that can print sixty pages a minute for under $200 has successfully demonstrated the technology.
Er, don't all inkjet printers use "nanotech"?
The maximum resolution achievable is 1600x1600, according to Silverbrook. Photo-quality printing on the 8x10 printer can be achieved at 30 pages per minute; standard office-quality color prints are printed at 60 pages per minute, and draft mode prints 90 pages per minute.
That's absolute shit. No wonder they're targeting photo printers. But who would ever need to print photos that quickly?
Text would look like garbage.
posted by delmoi at 8:40 AM on March 26, 2007
An Australian entrepreneur betting his company on a nanotech-fueled, consumer inkjet printer that can print sixty pages a minute for under $200 has successfully demonstrated the technology.
Er, don't all inkjet printers use "nanotech"?
The maximum resolution achievable is 1600x1600, according to Silverbrook. Photo-quality printing on the 8x10 printer can be achieved at 30 pages per minute; standard office-quality color prints are printed at 60 pages per minute, and draft mode prints 90 pages per minute.
That's absolute shit. No wonder they're targeting photo printers. But who would ever need to print photos that quickly?
Text would look like garbage.
posted by delmoi at 8:40 AM on March 26, 2007
who uses these things?
I still find laser printers way overpriced for anything I want to print out at home, and finding a deal on eBay isn't worth my time. Inkjet is more than enough for anything I need to do (print recipes, directions, etc.).
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:41 AM on March 26, 2007
I still find laser printers way overpriced for anything I want to print out at home, and finding a deal on eBay isn't worth my time. Inkjet is more than enough for anything I need to do (print recipes, directions, etc.).
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:41 AM on March 26, 2007
You can get a laser printer for like $100. That's the same cost as an inket + a couple ink refills (i.e. more than 2 weeks of printing). The Brother 5040 we bought like 5 years ago has never even had a paper jam, let alone any serious problem.
posted by DU at 8:47 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by DU at 8:47 AM on March 26, 2007
"That's absolute shit. No wonder they're targeting photo printers. But who would ever need to print photos that quickly?
Text would look like garbage."
Esplain to me what exactly is "absolute shit" about printing at full page photo quality (1600dpi) borderless color images at a page every two seconds?
posted by stenseng at 8:49 AM on March 26, 2007
Text would look like garbage."
Esplain to me what exactly is "absolute shit" about printing at full page photo quality (1600dpi) borderless color images at a page every two seconds?
posted by stenseng at 8:49 AM on March 26, 2007
Video of the 60 page per minute inkjet printer. Made my jaw drop. I've always thought it was a huge waste of time to have a little print head go back and forth over the paper.
Bring it on, I say. One of the applications in the video looks like a receipt printer, which is interesting to me since thermal receipts seem to fade out with a speed directly proportional to the value of the purchase that is on them. The speed of thermal plus light & heat-fastness is definitely cool, as long as the ink dries fast enough for me to put it in my wallet right away.
posted by zsazsa at 8:51 AM on March 26, 2007
Bring it on, I say. One of the applications in the video looks like a receipt printer, which is interesting to me since thermal receipts seem to fade out with a speed directly proportional to the value of the purchase that is on them. The speed of thermal plus light & heat-fastness is definitely cool, as long as the ink dries fast enough for me to put it in my wallet right away.
posted by zsazsa at 8:51 AM on March 26, 2007
Fab@Home looks pretty neat, but what I really want is a full-on rapid-prototyping setup at my local library. That's where Neil Gershenfeld thinks (thought?) his FabLabs should end up, a resource for the community to help them live more locally, recycle, create, and innovate.
posted by carsonb at 8:52 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by carsonb at 8:52 AM on March 26, 2007
Esplain to me what exactly is "absolute shit" about printing at full page photo quality (1600dpi) borderless color images at a page every two seconds?
Hmm, I thought they meant Dots per page.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 AM on March 26, 2007
Hmm, I thought they meant Dots per page.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 AM on March 26, 2007
Oh yeah, looking at some of the other pages, it's clear they meant DPI, which would be pretty impressive.
posted by delmoi at 8:54 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by delmoi at 8:54 AM on March 26, 2007
I am seriously considering (acquiring) a laser printer. I recently bought a $70 HP printer and, later that day, nearly smote it with a claw-hammer. My wife saw me eyeing the claw-hammer, located serendipitously within arm's reach of the offending gadget, and informed me that the sudden and irreversible reprogramming I was contemplating falls far outside the acceptable range of uses of the claw-hammer. I never get to smite anything :(
posted by Mister_A at 8:56 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 8:56 AM on March 26, 2007
But who would ever need to print photos that quickly?
Because if there's one thing that history teaches us, it's that demand never expands to the limits set by new technological possiblities.
Which is why nobody has ever, ever managed to fill more than 1GB of their hard drives. Or max out their Gmail account.
posted by signal at 9:03 AM on March 26, 2007
Because if there's one thing that history teaches us, it's that demand never expands to the limits set by new technological possiblities.
Which is why nobody has ever, ever managed to fill more than 1GB of their hard drives. Or max out their Gmail account.
posted by signal at 9:03 AM on March 26, 2007
jumping jiminy - thats very impressive indeed.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:21 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:21 AM on March 26, 2007
You can get a laser printer for like $100. That's the same cost as an inket + a couple ink refills (i.e. more than 2 weeks of printing). The Brother 5040 we bought like 5 years ago has never even had a paper jam, let alone any serious problem.
The color lasers I've seen that come close to the price point of the Kodak all seem to suffer from bog-slow printing and lower resolution that the Kodak specs. Plus there's the issue of the cost of the consumables. Color laser toner is priced like it's made from powdered unobtanium.
I'll definitely take a good look at the Kodak product.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:27 AM on March 26, 2007
The color lasers I've seen that come close to the price point of the Kodak all seem to suffer from bog-slow printing and lower resolution that the Kodak specs. Plus there's the issue of the cost of the consumables. Color laser toner is priced like it's made from powdered unobtanium.
I'll definitely take a good look at the Kodak product.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:27 AM on March 26, 2007
Color laser printers have come down in price quite a bit, and for the average home user, the toner packs that come with the printer will last for a long time. Damn inkjet ink packs dry up too fast.
For photo printing, it's often easier to take the things to Walgreens and print them out there. I believe they let you upload photos from your home computer for pick up at a store location.
Or just print 'em at work. :)
posted by drstein at 9:29 AM on March 26, 2007
For photo printing, it's often easier to take the things to Walgreens and print them out there. I believe they let you upload photos from your home computer for pick up at a store location.
Or just print 'em at work. :)
posted by drstein at 9:29 AM on March 26, 2007
Because if there's one thing that history teaches us, it's that demand never expands to the limits set by new technological possiblities.
Err, at the time I was thinking that the resolution was going to suck and it would only be useful for printing photographs and not black text. Obviously photo printers that quick would be useful for business, but I don't think they would be that useful for individuals. It's certainly cool but what's so exciting about running out of ink in 10 minutes? (Not surprising they use bigger ink cartridges)
Unlike hard drives, printing speed isn't as much of a limitation as the cost of paper and ink.
Definitely cool though. But, I bet they are probably violating some patent or other of HP and that they'll probably have to license their tech to HP and other printer companies in the end.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2007
Err, at the time I was thinking that the resolution was going to suck and it would only be useful for printing photographs and not black text. Obviously photo printers that quick would be useful for business, but I don't think they would be that useful for individuals. It's certainly cool but what's so exciting about running out of ink in 10 minutes? (Not surprising they use bigger ink cartridges)
Unlike hard drives, printing speed isn't as much of a limitation as the cost of paper and ink.
Definitely cool though. But, I bet they are probably violating some patent or other of HP and that they'll probably have to license their tech to HP and other printer companies in the end.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2007
Yeah, Rodger Dodger, I said it because I wanted to be cool. You found me out!
posted by dobbs at 9:38 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by dobbs at 9:38 AM on March 26, 2007
Full color 1600dpi rocks. At 2 seconds per page, if the colors are lustrous and accurate, and the ink is reasonably priced, they're gonna sell a lot of those printers.
posted by Malor at 9:40 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by Malor at 9:40 AM on March 26, 2007
After a couple rounds of "the inkjet refill cost more than the printer itself", I picked up a Samsung ML-2010 at CompUSA for $79 during one of their midnight-madness sales. It's the same printer that Dell sells for $100 or so. Replacement toner/drum cartridges run $55-75; it's amazing that "laser" printers are almost disposable items now.
I'm still tempted to buy one of the older HP Laserjet printers that doesn't integrate the drum into the toner cartridge, and stock up on new-old-stock toner carts for it.
posted by mrbill at 9:44 AM on March 26, 2007
I'm still tempted to buy one of the older HP Laserjet printers that doesn't integrate the drum into the toner cartridge, and stock up on new-old-stock toner carts for it.
posted by mrbill at 9:44 AM on March 26, 2007
Christ, just wait 'til there's a napster for 3-D pdfs (or whatever the fuck the format will be called).
I'll be printin' me up some bootleg boots.
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on March 26, 2007
I'll be printin' me up some bootleg boots.
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on March 26, 2007
Damn, that video is impressive if it's true.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on March 26, 2007
What? No love for RepRap? (self-plug, self-plug)
Hmmm... I just picked up a new cartridge for my old workhorse hp4050 laser printer; the $100 cartridge costs about as much as those fiddly little new laser printers.
I think there may be two pricing tiers these days - fiddly little consumer laser printers which break after a couple years, and office printers which just keep going.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:58 AM on March 26, 2007
Hmmm... I just picked up a new cartridge for my old workhorse hp4050 laser printer; the $100 cartridge costs about as much as those fiddly little new laser printers.
I think there may be two pricing tiers these days - fiddly little consumer laser printers which break after a couple years, and office printers which just keep going.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:58 AM on March 26, 2007
One possible issue: they say that the printer will have over seven THOUSAND inkjet nozzles.
What are the chances of ever printing a page with none of them clogged? And how much freaking ink is it gonna take to clear the stupid things?
posted by Malor at 10:04 AM on March 26, 2007
What are the chances of ever printing a page with none of them clogged? And how much freaking ink is it gonna take to clear the stupid things?
posted by Malor at 10:04 AM on March 26, 2007
Hey, that RepRap device does look pretty cool. Now all you have to do is make it microscopic and grey goo, here we come!
posted by TedW at 10:08 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by TedW at 10:08 AM on March 26, 2007
Hey, that RepRap device does look pretty cool. Now all you have to do is make it microscopic and grey goo, here we come!
That's not until the 2.0 release, we're still working on 1.0: printing printer parts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:12 AM on March 26, 2007
That's not until the 2.0 release, we're still working on 1.0: printing printer parts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:12 AM on March 26, 2007
All the people slagging inkjets obviously never worked in graphic design. Lasers are great for black and white, but color output is still problematic; it suffers tremendously in comparison with inkjet output in terms of color quality. Color laser may be fine for charts and such, I'd never use laser for photographic output.
posted by MegoSteve at 10:22 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by MegoSteve at 10:22 AM on March 26, 2007
Laser printers have gotten amazingly good for photos, but unless I've missed some new leap in technology, inkjet will still provide a shaper image and more accurate color representation, particularly when combined with photo quality paper.
And that isn't even looking at the really high end machines like dye sublimation printers.
There are still plenty of people who find inkjet to be completely necessary.
posted by quin at 11:03 AM on March 26, 2007
And that isn't even looking at the really high end machines like dye sublimation printers.
There are still plenty of people who find inkjet to be completely necessary.
posted by quin at 11:03 AM on March 26, 2007
There is in fact laser photo paper, but the results out of the gigantic expensive laser printer at work are not as good as what I get out of my hated HP. Of course, I only get 4 photos per cart. on the HP; YMMV.
PS I had an Epson CX6600 before that; it went a lot farther on a tank of gas, so to speak; a little more expensive up front though. It quit on me after 16 months.
posted by Mister_A at 11:14 AM on March 26, 2007
PS I had an Epson CX6600 before that; it went a lot farther on a tank of gas, so to speak; a little more expensive up front though. It quit on me after 16 months.
posted by Mister_A at 11:14 AM on March 26, 2007
I would happily buy an inkjet printer if it was price-competitive with online printing services. I don't know how people can afford to run inkjets.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:36 AM on March 26, 2007
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:36 AM on March 26, 2007
From your "human cells" link: "Scientists at Carnegie Mellon announced they have developed a printer that outputs in "bio-ink", according to Popular Mechanics. Studies have shown that the bio-ink created by the printer can grow new bone and muscle tissue when combined with stem cells from mice."
holy shit. My mind has been blown. That is astonishing. wow. If they printed out a bone, I wonder what would be on the B side?
posted by nickyskye at 11:38 AM on March 26, 2007
holy shit. My mind has been blown. That is astonishing. wow. If they printed out a bone, I wonder what would be on the B side?
posted by nickyskye at 11:38 AM on March 26, 2007
The wide-format printing in the video is remarkable.
I do have to echo the concerns about the nozzles clogging though, and also how quickly will this ink dry? The photo printer demo made me think that all those photos are going to be smudged to hell...
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:59 AM on March 26, 2007
I do have to echo the concerns about the nozzles clogging though, and also how quickly will this ink dry? The photo printer demo made me think that all those photos are going to be smudged to hell...
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:59 AM on March 26, 2007
Don't ink jet printer cartridges cost so much more because of suspicious manufacturer shenanigans (like attempting to stamp out refills and underfilling) more than the actual cost of the cart?
posted by JHarris at 12:05 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by JHarris at 12:05 PM on March 26, 2007
That, and they're price-gouging as deeply and viciously as possible. Inkjet ink is some of the most expensive liquid you can purchase, and not because it is rare, difficult to manufacture, or made of expensive ingredients.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:27 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by five fresh fish at 12:27 PM on March 26, 2007
I couldn't cite any evidence for this, but it seems that the inkjet manufacturers sell most of their sub $100 units at a loss and then make it up with the sale of a few replacement cartridges. By the time the owner has had it a year or so (out of warranty) they break and the cycle repeats.
Well, if they're actually selling the printers at a loss, they'd be better off selling them full price, no?
posted by delmoi at 12:41 PM on March 26, 2007
Well, if they're actually selling the printers at a loss, they'd be better off selling them full price, no?
posted by delmoi at 12:41 PM on March 26, 2007
No need to speculate, it is a pretty well known fact - ink jet printers loss leader.
In the case of ink jets, they probably are sold at a real loss compared to the parts cost, unlike video game consoles, where they seem to be sold a little above parts cost (still a loss leader, for practical purposes).
Word of warning, the cheap modern laser printers come with "starter" toner cartridges, so make purchases carefully..
posted by Chuckles at 1:28 PM on March 26, 2007
In the case of ink jets, they probably are sold at a real loss compared to the parts cost, unlike video game consoles, where they seem to be sold a little above parts cost (still a loss leader, for practical purposes).
Word of warning, the cheap modern laser printers come with "starter" toner cartridges, so make purchases carefully..
posted by Chuckles at 1:28 PM on March 26, 2007
The horrible downside to 3-D fabrication that nobody talks about: its damnably spooky accuracy. At Siggraph a few years ago, I waited in line to have my noggin scanned and "sculpted."
So the mini-bust arrived in the mail a few weeks later, and I was enthralled ... for about five minutes. Unlike an unflattering snapshot, there was just no way to claim that the scary-looking likeness was of my bad side.
I think 3-D Rob got "lost" in my next move.
posted by rob511 at 2:02 PM on March 26, 2007
So the mini-bust arrived in the mail a few weeks later, and I was enthralled ... for about five minutes. Unlike an unflattering snapshot, there was just no way to claim that the scary-looking likeness was of my bad side.
I think 3-D Rob got "lost" in my next move.
posted by rob511 at 2:02 PM on March 26, 2007
Got a Epson R200 from a dumpster 3 years ago. Brand new in the box but sans ink cartridges. Ordered some of those off brand cheapo cartridges. Been printing fine ever since. Excellent for CD's.
posted by riderace at 2:40 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by riderace at 2:40 PM on March 26, 2007
Desktop manufacturing seems pretty cool, but it'd be to see some desktop recycling too.
posted by SBMike at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by SBMike at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2007
Printing without ink is an old technology. Wait, no, older than that. Never fear, though, the Zink will undoubtedly far exceed its predecessor in cost per page.
posted by jlub at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2007
posted by jlub at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2007
I have an Epson 777 (way old), for which the original cartridges cost USD$40. The knockoffs cost USD$4.
Why would anybody buy original?
posted by signal at 7:16 PM on March 26, 2007
Why would anybody buy original?
posted by signal at 7:16 PM on March 26, 2007
I think 3-D Rob got "lost" in my next move.
3D printing is going to touch off some interesting sculpture and 3D digital portraiture. Most of it is going to be bad poser art, but some of it will be fascinating.
I'm sure Bathsheba Grossman has been mentioned in the blue before.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:57 PM on March 26, 2007
3D printing is going to touch off some interesting sculpture and 3D digital portraiture. Most of it is going to be bad poser art, but some of it will be fascinating.
I'm sure Bathsheba Grossman has been mentioned in the blue before.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:57 PM on March 26, 2007
Wow, I have to wonder what kind of processing power, data transfer, and memory those ultrafast printers require. It takes a non-trivial amount of computing power to work with large, high dpi images, to say nothing about sending them to the printer and storing them in the printer's ram (which usually must be done in a uncompressed format.) It wouldn't surprise me if USB 2.0 wasn't fast enough, and I bet that large format monster has at least several gb of ram.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:06 AM on March 27, 2007
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:06 AM on March 27, 2007
« Older Mother, I salute thee! | The Demon of Screamin' turns 59 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by beagle at 8:07 AM on March 26, 2007