Re: He ain't Epson, he's my Brother...
Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 19:18
Looking at it from the manufacturers and the distributors point of view, more printers to support means greater complexity and more support issues. In an ideal world, I'd prefer just the one printer for sublimation printing, that worked and didn't require too much support, but at the other extreme I wouldn't want an endless supply of printers to try to support that each had it's own querks/problems/issues and different ink supply systems. Stocking all these permutations would be confusing (as well as expensive!).
I can see the point of view of Sawgrass that they want a couple of supported platforms in the A4 and A3 market just in case one manufacturer changes the model/ cartridges (whatever) and then there is always continuing of supply of an A4/ A3 printer platform whilst tests are conducted on new models coming to the market.
I can also see the point of view being expressed in various threads looking to get a cheap(er) printer and cheap(er) inks/ printing. Rolling this logic forward could result in a dramatic reduction in the profitability of the sector. Not sure how many people read Michael Porter and know of his Five Forces but these are about competitive advantage - enabling you guys to sell at the price you do to make the profits you want. Such competitive advantage is achieved, amogst others, by preventing the entry of new competition and a barrier to entry of new competition is the set up costs of the business. If cheap(er) printers and cheap(er) inks/ printing were readily available then you would have a huge number of people 'dambling' in the market, reducing prices and the profitability for all - thereby starting a downward spiral in selling prices/ profits.
So I see both points of view - from the manufacturer of the inks/ systems in reducing complexity but this in turn creates barriers to entry as prices are high(er) than if a cheap(er) printer was supported. Likewise I understand why the end users want a cheap(er) route to print to earn profits. A middle ground may be achieved by those that want to experiment with other printers to gain their own knowledge and competitive advantage.
Just my rambling thoughts...
I can see the point of view of Sawgrass that they want a couple of supported platforms in the A4 and A3 market just in case one manufacturer changes the model/ cartridges (whatever) and then there is always continuing of supply of an A4/ A3 printer platform whilst tests are conducted on new models coming to the market.
I can also see the point of view being expressed in various threads looking to get a cheap(er) printer and cheap(er) inks/ printing. Rolling this logic forward could result in a dramatic reduction in the profitability of the sector. Not sure how many people read Michael Porter and know of his Five Forces but these are about competitive advantage - enabling you guys to sell at the price you do to make the profits you want. Such competitive advantage is achieved, amogst others, by preventing the entry of new competition and a barrier to entry of new competition is the set up costs of the business. If cheap(er) printers and cheap(er) inks/ printing were readily available then you would have a huge number of people 'dambling' in the market, reducing prices and the profitability for all - thereby starting a downward spiral in selling prices/ profits.
So I see both points of view - from the manufacturer of the inks/ systems in reducing complexity but this in turn creates barriers to entry as prices are high(er) than if a cheap(er) printer was supported. Likewise I understand why the end users want a cheap(er) route to print to earn profits. A middle ground may be achieved by those that want to experiment with other printers to gain their own knowledge and competitive advantage.
Just my rambling thoughts...