Slashdot Mirror
HP Invents A New Way To Print
Sushant Bhatia writes "Forbes is reporting that HP is introducing new technology in its inkjet printers that should help the company and consumers save time and money. If successful, the strategy may alter the economics of the printer market. The new inkjet platform, which will initially be geared toward the high end of the market, will incorporate the print head in the printer itself rather than in the ink cartridge. It means cheaper prints for consumers (about 24 cents per photo print) and faster output. HP says it has more than halved the time it takes to print a 4-inch-by-6-inch photo, to 14 seconds. The press release from HP has details on the new technology."
Print-head-in-printer has been around for a long time. The advance they've made is using photolithography for more of the construction process.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Nice article about the new system and printer here.
How is this "inventing" a new way to print? Hasn't Epson been doing this for years in their printers?
I know when I replace my printer cartridge on my Epson I just replace the ink, unlike the old HP I used to have where I replaced the head every time.
Of course, this might be a new thing for HP to sell new printers, as when the ink dries in the head the whole printer has to be replaced. One of the downsides that we've always had to deal with in an Epson.
-Alyred
Which is how every OTHER manufacturer of inkjets makes their printers. Way to innovate, HP.
So now with HP printers, it'll be just like epson: "Your print head is clogged? Throw away the printer". At least with HP if the 'head' clogs you throw away the cartridge and replace it with a new one.
Epson has had print heads in the inkjet printers for a long time. That's why the ink cartridges are only $7 retail (I got a dozen for ~$15 on ebay).
Canon used to have theirs seperate from the little ink wells so that you could replace the heads independent of each other.
The 'heads' are just micro-voltage actuated valves. The ones built into cartridge heads have short lifetimes (hence why you shouldn't refill more than 3 or 4 times). The quality of heads in the Epson are much sturdier, but then you waste alot of ink trying to purge clogged valves.
I used to work on a LARGE printer (printed directly to custom cardboard boxes). The printheads were made by Marsh printing (~400 just to have them repacked) and was bigger than my fist. (can you see me clenching).
Anyway, not a new idea. Just a 'new specific implementation'.
Come on! "New Way to Print" my ASS.
This is just corporate newspeak saying "we are taking over the technique our closest competitors have been using since 1995".
Single ink tanks&co arent innovative in any way. The same with permanent printing heads. It was just HPs idea of product marketing up to now to maximize running costs by making everything disposable.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Canon has a printhead that is seperate from the ink carts, but also replaceable if it gets fouled up, thus allowing you to replace only the parts that need it.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
By taking the print head out of the cartridge, this does make the carts cheaper.
now if they could just lower the price on ink cartridges. 45 bucks to refill my ink is a bit steep
RTFA. They are coming out with a lowend printer that will have black and color cartridges at $15 and $18, with the printer costing $50.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Still totally unrealistic for businesses, but nice try.
I don't respond to AC's.
How is this "inventing" a new way to print? Hasn't Epson been doing this for years in their printers?
Heck: The first inkjet printer I ever dealt with was back in the early '70s, when they had just been invented. It was a prototype with a spinning drum holding the paper, a carriage with the ultrasonic-driven spitters, and three bottles hooked to the carriage by flexible tubes.
Quite an advance at the time. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's not the fact the print head is in the printer, it's the fact that the print head has 3,900 nozzles allowing it to print width swaths at a time.
See Here
so what? other manufacturers have been doing this forever.
also, there is a much higher chance of the nozzles getting clogged on a built-in head system (people with cheap lexmarks and canons know what i'm talking about). I actually prefer having the printhead on the cartridge - you'll never have to throw the printer away if the jets have been clogged with dried ink.
It is possible to clean them out sometimes by running some isopropyl through the heads instead of ink, but i've run in to several printers that got caked up so bad that nothing would clean them.
I wish that the printer manufacturers would make the HEADS and the CARTRIDGES easy to replace. On most of them, you have to take the carriage assembly half way apart to get the heads to slide off.
on a side note, I don't think that inkjet market is going to change direction any time soon - they make most of their money on cartridges. As long as you'll be able to buy a printer for $39 at wallyworld, ink will not be cheap.
--- sig moved for great justice.
As soon as my grandparents in rural Montana get broadband connections...
I was about to say they'll need computers, too, but then I realized that first part will never, ever happen, so, until someone mandates high-speed internet access for everyone in the US like they mandated telephone service, I ( and I have to imagine many others ) will need some method of printing my digital photos of their great-grandchildren onto real photo paper, so I can ( gasp ) send the pictures via snail-mail. Not everyone lives the wired life... the dot-com crash should have taught you that.
As the price-per-picture of printing services decreases, however, *I* am more likely to consider using them. Inkjet photo printers are truly an expensive pain in the ass. HP isn't going to change the expensive part, though...
Really, I'll always want *some* sort of printer, at least until I can afford laptops for *both* my wife and I. Even then, sometimes a printed map is more handy than opening a laptop... printers will always be useful, even if used less often.
The biggest change is that you really can print photos at home now. Ten years ago that wasn't practical. People like having physical copies of their photos for an album, and you just can't replicate that with a screen.
.doc format to an annoying degree, but that's another post.
Sure, but that's why I use internet photo printing services. Home printing sounds convenient and easy, but it invariably isn't unless you have a nice color laser printer. Inkjets still have the problem of limited cartridge lifespan whether you use the cartridge or not!
When I want ultimate convenience and don't mind a wait, I use iPhoto's built-in printing service (especially for its book creation). When I need a photo immediately I submit it to the nearest Wolf Camera online and pick it up an hour later. In both cases the quality is much higher than I could easily replicate at home with an inkjet; and with much less hassle.
Besides, the advent of easy (really easy) online photo sharing the biggest reason I printed photographs is now nearly handled; and I only really print bound books from iPhoto.
I have a black and white laser printer but only rarely use it; but it's perfect for those infrequent times when I want to print out something. The only time I need color is photographs and that's covered by the online solutions.
(Not to mention that most schools still won't accept your homework on a CD-ROM.)
In my experience many professors are preferring work submitted electronically. Although they still prefer
Canon's Replacable Print Head
I don't know why on earth one would want a permanent print head when you can get one that is both removable and separate from the ink.
More
I'm very happy with my Canon PIXMA iP3000. It's got everything a comsumer would want. Separate print heads and separate refillable cartidges (for each color) that are translucent so you can actually see how much ink is left. It does duplex printing with no extra gear, does photos like a dream, and even comes with nice software. And to top it off it was only $65 with a $20 mail in rebate, can't beat that. My HP Officejet D135 would have taken way more than that just to fix. It needs a new magenta printhead and all new ink (was out on both color and b&w).
My Canon even seems stingy on using ink. My HP burned through color carts like no tomorrow even though I wasn't printing color. They're like $35 a pop or something stupid, and you can't buy separate colors. My canon has printed over 150 pages with quite a bit of color on it, and the ink level didn't even seem to flinch.
I've had similar delightful experiences with my Canon digital elph camera. I love that company.
My Canon iP6000D has the best of both worlds - separate print heads and ink tanks. Keeps the ink relatively cheap ($10-13/tank), and when the print heads wear out or clog up, they're replaceable. Shameless plug - I've used both Epson and HP printers before the Canon...I won't be swiching back.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Epson and Canon have been building the print heads into the printers for years. HP has always had more expensive ink because you replace print heads every single time you buy cartidges.
Does HP think that we should praise them for doing what others have been doing for years now? I remember a time when HP stood for innovation. Now they take an old idea and pass it off as a consumer-centric innovation? Stoopid.
Epson and Canon have had their heads integrated into the printers for YEARS.
Actually, I preferred the old HP way of having the heads in the cartridge. Why? Heads get scratched. They get clogged. They wear out. Instead of buying some insanely expensive and hard-to-replace printhead, all you have to do is swap out the cartridge and you're printing like new. It's the same thing with HP's lasers...The imaging drum and the toner cartridge are in the same package. It might increase the price of the carts a little, but maintenance isn't as big of a deal. Besides if you want to max out your drum life, you can always refill the toner.
I guess all HP's announcement means is that their inkjets will suck even more. As it is I am quite displeased with Epson and Canon products (take a guess...printhead problems), but now I guess HP can join the team. My experience with inkjets have completely driven me away form the technology. I'll gladly shell out $600+ for a laser printer that I never have to worry about over an inkjet that prints blank pages or lines if it decides to work at all. Besides a toner cart capable of printing 1000's of pages only costs, what, just double what a little inkjet cart prices out at?
Even if you need color, the lasers have dropped through the floor. At work we just picked up an HP3550 color laser for under $1000, and that's with networking. Granted, HP really screwed the pooch and provided not an INTERNAL JetDirect like I expected, but rather included an external USB print server with no price break, but at least it prints nice.
I thought things were supposed to get BETTER after Fiorina was ousted
-R
As soon as my grandparents in rural Montana get broadband connections...
Depends on where they are. You can get DSL in the Thompson Falls/Noxon area which is pretty rural.
Satellite is also available everywhere in Montana, unless you're on the north slope of a mountain.
Hell, even dial-up is acceptable for e-mail communications w/smaller (JPG) pictures.
In your case, just upload the photos using Shutterfly, Walmart or some other service that will snail-mail them to where ever you want.
-Charles
(In semi-rural Idaho)
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
They will just jack up the ink price further to make the final price even again. Makes me think the whole reason the head was on the cartridge was to make thirdparty cartridges difficult to make or copy.
We should all be exclusively using laserjets anyway, why is anyone happy the inkjet technology has a new lease on life?
Where I work we have a $2,400 HP color laser printer. I also have experience with a color laser printer at a local university that I'm sure cost about twice that much. Both are absolutely worthless for printing photos. Any $50 inkjet photo printer can kick their ass for photo printing, not on speed or cost but on how the prints look. The worst inkjets I've ever seen didn't print photos as badly as the laserjets do.
Graphs and charts? Sure, go color laser, if you can afford the initial investment which will be around $500 at a minimum. Laserjets are great with big blocks of color, and cheaper over the long run. But a $99 Epson inkjet that uses Ultrachrome inks will get you an archival quality photo print with incredible color gamut and accuracy, and should last 70-200 years depending on what paper you use. If you print 8x10 or larger most of the time it's also cheaper than using a commercial photo printing service.
For monochrome and non-photo color business printing, laserjets all the way. For home and business photo printing there really isn't an alternative to inkjet besides dye sublimation, and dye-sub printers are expensive and very inflexible, plus studies show that dye-sub prints fade almost as fast as most inkjet prints.
It's all about using the right tool for the job.
Epson has been doing this for a long time, and so has canon. Epson print heads are permanent, and cannot be removed while canon uses disposable print heads that are however separate from the ink cartridges
Just another crappy blog
If you want to know how HP really became [incorrectly] known as the origin for all laser printers, I'd suggest reading this page. It covers the Canon CX print engine, and the things HP did right that gave them the marketshare they now have. Notice that some of the things they did right are opposite from what they're doing now.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.