Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8]
11 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#7] 11 Apr 2006
Paul,
What differentiates a sublimation supplier with "legitimate" access, (to empty carts) from those without such access?
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#9]
11 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8] 11 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#10]
11 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#9] 11 Apr 2006
Paul,
Most, if not all companies, claiming patent infringement, are more than willing, in most cases, to sell to anyone, as long as they receive their licensing fees or royalties.
If Epson is selling (virgin) cartridges, for use with inks, other than their own, why would Sawgrass receive special consideration, over other sublimation suppliers?
EDITED: 11 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11]
11 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#10] 12 Apr 2006
If that were the case David I think the choice would be clear for Epson who the market leader was in this sector of the market and I would imgine the fees involved would put most companies out of the frame but like I said 'if that were the case'
Your theory that Epson would license their patents to others I feel is clutching at straws a little. Take HP, as far as I am aware they defend their patents with a passion on the cartridges (which have the print heads on them) and I don't know of anywhere where you can buy a replica HP cartridge other than the complete rip offs from China (please correct me if I am wrong on this) and I dont see any reason why Epson would not follow the same business model. Also make note Epson don't sell sublimation inks so this does not affect their sales of regualr inks.
From: UncleSteve [#12]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
Another option could be for Epson to partner with SG and start co-branding and selling the SG inks in Epson cartridges so they both "win"....
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#13]
12 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#12] 12 Apr 2006
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
....Unless Epson decides to sell sublimation inks, they have absolutely no drive to license "alternative carts" which will essentially be used for "alternative inks" that will cut into their percieved margins. Think about how many printers Epson has had to fix because of certain sublimation ink problems.......Why would they expose themselves to these types of costs, when they can just control their own ink market by locking everyone else out.
I think that someone will have to do the R&D for a fitting that will attach to the print head or printer much like the earlier simple bulk systems....Or some sort of modification to a standard Epson cart, that once flushed would be able to be refilled or modified to accept a bulk type hose to transfer ink from a bulk bottle to the cart which would act like a feed mechanism. Much easier said than done with all the stuff Epson has done to keep people from re-filling their carts.
If they have success with this approach, you can bet that ulitmately, even their large format printers will end up with a patented cartridge to protect their ink sales.
Perhaps a custom made printer made just for sublimation will be a more lucrative option in the near future. :)
Wouldn't it be ironic if the "sublimation Giant" would lose it's ink jet business via the same type of market control tactics that it used ?
You need not answer that last question ;)
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#15]
12 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14] 12 Apr 2006
There is another way of looking at that Brian relative to DIY what is it they say 'Two Coats Of Paint Are Better Than One'
:-)
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#16]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#15] 12 Apr 2006
Yeah, they are pretty tight with Epson. Them getting an exclusive with the 4 color high speed option on the Epson 4000 was a shock to me...I had no idea they had that kind of pull with Espon.
Your probably right, it will more likely be double coverage for them, than a threat to the status quo.
I guess those old Epson 3000's I have laying around will be worth something someday afterall ;)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#17]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 12 Apr 2006
Paul,
In past discussions, regarding building sublimation-specific printers, according to your research, Epson sells upwards of 250,000 small format printers per month and the current ink jet sublimation industry doesn't amount to a blip on their radar.
With that in mind, in essence, you're saying Sawgrass and Epson have already bonded.
If that weren't the case, even the mighty Sawgrass Technologies/Tropical Graphics contingent wouldn't amount to a considerable (overall) market segment either.
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#18]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#17] 12 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#19]
12 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#18] 12 Apr 2006
Paul,
You're in a position to have a feel for the trends in the sublimation industry. Do you see a day when people will be able to buy ink jet sublimation cartridges from CompUSA, etc. ,etc?
If there's an upside to the Epson patent issue, it may be that they can get rid of the "chipped" cartridges, which, unless they serve a crucial function, seem to have been developed as a roadblock, to discourage people from filling their own cartridges.
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
12 Apr 2006
To: ALL
Could this be the deal between Epson and Sawgrass? Uncle Steve alluded to that scenario, earlier in this thread.
It makes more sense than either company limiting their options and that would guarantee a much bigger share of the sublimation ink cartridge business, than simply relying on sales through sublimation suppliers.
While we're on the topic of Epson "chipped" ink jet cartridges, I thought you may find this interesting:
http://www.epsonsettlement.com/Notice.htm
EDITED: 12 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#21]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
From: UncleSteve [#22]
12 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
$45 x 2 = $90 = C88!!!! B-)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23]
13 Apr 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#21] 13 Apr 2006
I couldn't imagine Sawgrass/Tropical Graphics cutting their sublimation supply distributors off at the knees, by making ink cartridges available to the general public, but you know what they say...money talks...and it speaks very loudly.
Many of the process variables have been conquered (more or less) with much more stable ink, with a longer shelf life and ICC profiles, making color correction much more reliable.
The other variables of heat, dwell time and pressure aren't major hurdles.
Small format printers are disposable. The money, for Epson, has always been in the ink. Same goes for sublimation ink suppliers. Selling ink cartridges, or small increments of ink, are the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
As to CompUSA or others selling heat presses, if there comes a demand, I have no doubt they'd fill it.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24]
13 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#22] 13 Apr 2006
I was amazed at the long list of printers, that qualified for the class action.
I know of one person who has five!
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#25]
13 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23] 13 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#26]
13 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#25] 13 Apr 2006
So far, Sawgrass and Epson have shown a propensity for protecting their investments, which is why I think my "theory" isn't very far-fetched.
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#27]
13 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Apr 2006
Why would Epson have a beef with SG? SG don't take Epsons ink sales unlike the other cartridge suppliers. Apartnership with Epson would make perfect sense especially as both companies could protect their IP with patents etc. Think about it many have questioned SG's patents including myself but whats the upside for someone trying to fight them now if Epson got involved and said "Hey that cartridge you are putting that ink in breaks my patent"
As you can see on this web site http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_2790.html Epson have already recieved a summary judgement in their favor so anyone they sue now it is a bit of a slam dunk.
Bit of a slam dunk if you ask me.
Show messages: 1-7 8-27 28-47 48-67 68-75