As my next Tribute's Tuesday column is not until mid January I am putting this subject on the blog as I feel there are points to be made now. The majority of suppliers today are having a hard time and few are meeting the market projections they made around the drupa timescale. We have seen Heidelberg having promised orders failing to materialize after drupa have instigated major cost saving measures and have also seen their stock price drop through the floor. Heidelberg is not alone in seeing major falls in stock prices and almost all offset press suppliers have seen major falls in this area. In the prepress area Agfa has seen its stock price fall drastically as investors appear to lose faith in the company. It appears the financial community is writing off the printing industry and its suppliers and is losing faith in the industry for the future. In the digital printing area things are somewhat better and we have not seen the major drops in turnover, profits or stock prices that have been seen in the offset area. Some companies such as HP appear to be prospering, and Xerox is not doing badly but has battened down the hatches with cost reductions to prepare for a bad 2009.
The major subject I want to cover is one of the major players in the market. This is Kodak (or Eastman Kodak to be correct). Kodak has been through a massive restructuring over the past four years under the guidance of its CEO, Antonio Perez. This has seen a major move out of film operations with a substantial close down programme of film factories worldwide. It has cut almost 28,000 jobs in its worldwide workforce. Perez's strategy is a major switch to digital products with a push towards new inkjet technologies. During the time of this four year restructuring plan and the push to digital luckily for Kodak revenues from Kodak's Graphic Communications Group have held up mainly due to the success of its printing plate business and associated digital workflow and CtP operations. Digital printing by xerography with the Nexpress and Digimaster products and by inkjet with the Versamark products has at this stage not made a real contribution to profits.
In early December Kodak cut its 2008 sales and profit projections for the second time in six weeks, citing a deepening global recession and changes in the value of the US dollar. The stock slid as much as 9% in New York trading. The company stated it plans to intensify its focus on cash generation and reduce costs. Executives won't receive a salary increase next year, where permissible by law, and Kodak will temporarily suspend its 2009 match for 401(k) retirement savings plans in the US.
At this time the financial analysts that specialize on certain companies make their comments. I have had much experience of dealing with many of these analysts and I find that while they may well understand company finance, few really understand the realities of the printing industry and how its suppliers are working. One of the well-known analysts is Shannon Cross of Cross Research. Commenting on the Kodak statement she said "I fully believe further restructuring will be needed. Their biggest challenge is cash flow. They've pulled their cash guidance, are looking for $US500 million this quarter and have rising debt. They're going to need to trim spending somewhere." I understand she then continued stating that one of the areas Kodak should look at reducing expenditure is in the development of future inkjet technologies. Cross recommends investors should sell Kodak stock and to expect further cost reduction announcements in early 2009.
Now I don't know just what expertise Cross brings to the party to make these suggestions to Kodak. I feel however it is a typical example of the short-term thinking that dominates the financial markets in North America and Europe, whereas we see much more structured long-term thinking in the Far East. The suggestion that Kodak should cut investment in future inkjet technologies shows a total lack of understanding of Kodak's markets. Where the hell does Cross expect Kodak to find its future business. The cash cow of printing plate sales will not continue as a high margin area for long as demand for plates fall as the offset market goes into recession, and new low cost plate suppliers from China enter the world's markets. The Nexpres and Digimaster xerographic printers while really excellent products, have never been a financial success and are are seeing increasing competition from companies like Ricoh and Konica Minolta, as well as failing to catch HP Indigo and Xerox.
To succeed in the future graphics markets companies will need a really strong market technology, good management and excellent distribution channels. Kodak has the second and third of these and I believe that Kodak with its STREAM continuous inkjet technology has a technology that can achieve market leadership in the changing markets. It is not difficult to predict that HP with its massive investment into inkjet printing technology will be the market leader in inkjet digital printing from the desktop to the enterprise and into graphic arts. Kodak's STREAM technology appears to me to be the only technology that will really compete with HP in the high volume and high-quality printing areas. STREAM also appears to be the best prospect in inkjet technologies to challenge offset printing in the long-term. Other inkjet technologies from companies like Fujifilm Dimatix and Xaar are likely to impact more in developments in industrial printing such as printed electronics that will use specialized types of fluids for printing.
I believe that Kodak must continue its investments in STREAM technologies as its highest priority of investment. Without STREAM being fully implemented together with the associated Kodak based ink annuity business, Kodak does not really have a long-term future. It may be best in the short term for investors for Kodak to do major cost cutting in areas of development, but to do so will simply pass the future leadership of the printing market to HP and possibly Fujifilm. I hope that investors ignore Ms Cross's advise and stick with Antonio Perez and his plan for Kodak's future.
Discussion
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 30, 2008
Points well taken.
Meanwhile, Kodak better keep moving forward or Screen is going to one this market.
Just found this at Quick Printing.com..
"Screen veteran Rick Siwicki, formerly manager of the Applications Support Department, has been named to oversee the new product support group, effective December 1.
The growing emphasis on POD solutions played a decisive role in merging the three existing departments. "
and this one from
Graphic Arts Online:
http://www.graphicartsonline.com/article/CA6610806.html?nid=3470&rid=219616614
Newsworld Corp. selected an AlphaGraphics franchise to print U.S. copies of the U.K.’s Daily Mail and Screen Truepress Jet520, The publisher will buy a Screen Truepress Jet520 on-demand newsprint solution with a dedicated Standard Hunkeler finishing system to be installed at Dayton, NJ-based printer. AlphaGraphics parent company Pindar is based in the U.K
Alphagraphics, a "retail" print network + Screen = print and distribute newspapers for Newsworld.
Where are the traditional commercial printers in this equation? Where's Donnelly and Consolidated?
By Ryan on Dec 30, 2008
Kodak DOES need to restructure. Their licensing is a bureaucratic mess, divisions can't get internal PO's through to other divisions in order to get their customers a product, and there is very little coordination between sales, customer service, and application specialists. If they could streamline their internal processes instead of running as a giant lumbering beast, perhaps they wouldn't anger their customers at every turn.
By Steve Hall on Dec 31, 2008
Yes, Konica Minolta has excellent printers on the PRO side. The output is almost indistinguishable from HP Indigos, and the speed is similar. The cost however is about one-tenth the cost of the HP, Nexpress or iGen. We make substrates for the three latter, but bought the former to print for our customers who require it.
By Bob Raus on Dec 31, 2008
Hi Andy,
I just entered a comment to Rick Littrell's article on this blog site named “Battle for Desktop Printing is Getting Interesting” about Kodak’s aggressive inkjet marketing tactics. Those comments apply directly to the financial stability of Kodak and therefore is relevant to your article as well. I agree that Kodak has a very strong product portfolio and needs to invest in long-term strategic moves. Inkjet is clearly THE growth area of the future and that makes my question #1 below all the more compelling.
-------------
I like the fact that Kodak is challenging HP for sure. My questions are 1) why are they being SO aggressive right off the starting blocks – and 2) what additional moves are really possible going forward? As a seasoned product marketer, I fully understand the need for a compelling, hard-hitting value proposition at product launch, but this approach from Kodak to triple cartridge coverage while reducing cartridge cost by 2/3 just seems unnecessarily aggressive and rash in the long term.
Clearly either ONE of these things would be sufficient – coupled with the strength and reputation for quality of the Kodak brand - to take significant market share from HP. This of course assumes that they invested in a sufficient array of web/print/and TV advertisements along with retail store promotion/PR/displays/marketing which is clearly a Kodak strength.
**So why is Kodak willing to GIVE AWAY significant profits from these inks right up front when they could come to market at (only) ½ the price of HP – especially when other areas of their business are stumbling?
**And secondly, what is their next marketing move? We all know that you need to stay in front of the customer with continual messaging and new, updated value propositions. Kodak is a master at this and has one of the strongest brands on the planet because of it. With cartridge prices near $10/15, print quality at exceptional levels, and global support availability – where else can they go? This is one TOUGH act to follow!!
I have deep respect for Kodak execs and am baffled by this move. I believe it is an unparalleled, BOLD move in our industry and I am anxious to see if it pays off in the LONG term.
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 31, 2008
Lots of interesting issues in this Kodak post and much of the final outcome is very hard to predict. But there are comments that can be made.
The market tends to get things right except for short term price fluctuations. Somehow the market sees things that insiders to an industry don't.
The financial market and the career market have decided that the printing industry is not the right place to invest money and personal talent and this trend started well before the severe drop in the economy began.
I don't know whether the financial analyst is correct about thinking that Kodak should drop its ink jet development. From the post, it sounded more like an action to preserve cash than a comment on the particular technology. There may be no point in developing a great technology if it causes the company to go belly up.
There is also the implication that the ink jet technology will eventually replacing offset. I think this is a false assumption. I think new forms of offset will replace offset. I know something about the potential of offset and if it is developed in a new direction, ink jet will not be able to compete in cost and performance, ever. Companies that invest in developing advanced ink jet to attack the higher volume offset market could be in for a very unpleasant surprise, chasing a goal that keeps moving out of its reach. Wasting resources that will never be fully recovered and leaving customers with technologies that will not be supported.
Somehow the financial markets see that players in the industry can't innovate enough to take market share away from their competitors and therefore the market can not see any clear winners to bet on. In a shrinking market, such a stalemate situation is a lose-lose environment.
There are opportunities for companies such as press manufacturers to take market share but they need to rethink what they are doing. They now refine and apply new engineering solutions but they don't fundamentally understand what can be done to change the process. Until they open up to the possibility that improvements can be made based on new understanding of how the process works and how it can be improved with less costly technical approaches, they will all just die a slow death.
The financial markets see this from the balance sheets and I see this from the lack of interest by the players in making the innovations that are possible.
I guess we will all have to wait to see how this will turn out. In the end, the market decides.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 31, 2008
Erik-
My 2 cents about the financial foresight of the market in general. Not so much.
Without commenting on this particular analyst re Kodak, in general it is the same culture gave AAA ratings to MBS and CDS financial instruments. Remember when the head of Lehman predicted $200/barrel oil?
Not to say there is no signal of something reflected in a stock price. But the notion that an analyst understands the business they are analyzing, just doesn't usually bear out.
As for inkjet, the opportunity is both in the consumer market and in rich database driven publishing. Both of which are independent of any possible improvements in offset.
The cost of production could get to zero, and offset still can't compete in those spaces. In short runs of static printing, your points are well taken.
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 31, 2008
Michael,
The market is not what one analyst or CEO does or says. The market is the collective decisions of a large number of investors and at this time, bad business decisions by CEOs, the Fed and government agencies are being punished by the market.
Oil may go to $200 a barrel but not because anyone says it will. It will be determined by the market due to the forces of supply and demand in the long run and market psychology in the short run.
I agree with you that there will be a market for ink jet but the question is how big will it be. Remember that at one time people thought DI was going to be big. My view has always been that it would not be because it did not really do what was being claimed. The market decided.
No one is smarter than the market and we will all have to wait to find out what will be the outcome.
My view is that there is an opportunity for offset press manufacturers to improve their chances in the market if they would only get off their intellectual lazy bottoms and start to think in a different way.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 31, 2008
Erik,
I'm with you about the "lazy bottoms" issue. And I'm with you on the market.
Just to be clear, I was referring to the casino we call the "Stock Market", not the real life markets of real people buying real stuff/service for real money.
By George Alexander on Dec 31, 2008
Erik, I would be glad to know why you believe that “ink jet will not be able to compete in cost and performance, ever.” My conversations with those developing inkjet technologies cause me to believe that inkjet can be just as cheap as offset ink (if manufactured in comparable quantity) and that inkjet speeds can be just as fast as offset speeds. If so, direct competition in both cost and performance will surely occur, once the initial development costs are amortized.
In fact, I believe that inkjet will take huge amounts of work away from offset, though offset will be able to defend certain niches. My general arguments are given here:
http://www.beyond-print.de/site/content/en/channel_news/news_0249.html
There may be some limitations of inkjet that I am overlooking. If so, I would be delighted to learn more about the subject. If not, I think our industry is in for some very interesting competition over the next decade or two. Don’t you agree?
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 31, 2008
Michael,
A agree with you. The greedy forces on Wall Street and the incompetence and possibly collusion of the Fed and SEC etc. and the blind government actions on both sides of the floor, have done more damage to the USA than any terrorists could have done. And that damage was spread around the world.
It is very upsetting and is going to produce scars for a long time. We all are looking to the US for the leadership to get things back on track but know it is going to be tough.
By Michael Josefowicz on Dec 31, 2008
George,
You make a strong case in the argument in your post about inkjet v offset. I think two other factors are going to make ink jet scale.
1. I assume, but don't know, that inkjet
uses a lot less power and certainly has a much smaller physical footprint.
2. I assume, but don't know for sure, that ink jet allows production speed printing from database files.
If it's correct that the future of print lives someplace in the link between the information cloud and back again, this could be the real problem for static printing.
Perhaps lots of offset presses in the future will be maximized for printed electronics. It seems to me that field is about to explode.
By Erik Nikkanen on Dec 31, 2008
George,
You may be right but I don't think so and even if theoretically ink jet can compete with offset, it still has to prove that to the market. I don't think it is the appropriate technology. It is over kill.
But to answer your question about why I believe that ink jet will not be able to compete with offset, ever, I will give some of my reasons.
Printing is basically putting a specific amount of ink in a specific place on a substrate. Using an inked plate, blanket and impression is very effective and simple in relation to the very complicated requirements of ink jet. Simplicity and effective processes will tend to have an economic advantage over complicated ones.
In your article you talk about mid sheetfed speeds as a reference. The comparison for speed should be with high speed web presses. One might say that most of the printing is done on sheetfed presses but I would say that traditional sheetfed presses are also in a position to be replaced with higher speed web presses that have inexpensive methods to change repeat length. These presses are already on the market. They run at speeds of 500 meters per minute and it takes only a few minutes to change their print repeat lengths. The paper cost to run such a press with a sheeter on it would be less than the paper costs for existing sheetfed presses. Other web presses of course run at even higher speeds.
Ink jets tend to print well right from the start even though it is reported that they also vary. Offset has had problems in this area but this is not an inherent problem with offset. This is my area of knowledge and I say that an offset press, sheetfed or web can be made to come up to a sell-able colour in 20 or 30 impressions if the press is designed right. This can be done at a lower equipment cost than what exists now for presses. Maybe 80% of this capability can even be applied to legacy presses at relatively low cost.
The only thing preventing this to happen is the stubbornness of the press manufacturers to think differently.
But lets say that you are right and that an ink jet press can be made to cost the same and perform the same as an offset press. What about the sustainability of such a press? Complicated technology requires complicated support. What does one do after a few years and one finds that the technology needs repair or replacement. Offset is relative easy to maintain and all that is needed are vendors that can supply machining of parts besides the consumables.
Historically electronics and digital equipment is disposable. The internal parts become out of date and difficult to obtain. Computer chips that require firmware that no one knows about anymore or is not compatible with the latest chip technology, becomes a problem.
Resale of an ink jet press will probably be very low due to these kinds of issues.
The kind of investment to try to make ink jet cost and perform to future offset capabilities will be huge. I doubt that the printing industry will support that. Compare that to the investment in developing newer offset approaches which have already had the science done and concepts developed.
As you say, it will be interesting to see what happens but over the next decade or two is quite a bit of time. If they can't get things competitive much sooner, they will quit trying. They tend to quit easily.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 01, 2009
Erik,
You got me with
"Complicated technology requires complicated support. What does one do after a few years and one finds that the technology needs repair or replacement. Offset is relative easy to maintain and all that is needed are vendors that can supply machining of parts besides the consumables."
You corrected my blind spot on support.
Thanks!
By George Alexander on Jan 02, 2009
Erik,
You make some excellent points. Perhaps the future is web offset for the longer print runs and digital for the shorter ones, with sheetfed offset mostly going away. I agree that that is a possible outcome. I can imagine a future US printing industry with, say, 30,000 digital printers and 3,000 web-offset printers handling the long static runs.
But I don’t agree with your “complicated technology” argument. Offset lithography is more complex (by most measurements) than letterpress, but over the course of several decades, offset wiped out letterpress.
And how is complexity measured? For offset, you need a highly specialized CTP system to make plates, and that alone is arguably more complex than an inkjet device. On top of that, you need a high-precision mechanical press with substantial numbers of large moving parts. For inkjet, by comparison, you need some heads that are precisely mounted in a stationary rack with the paper moving underneath — very few moving parts. The heads themselves are designed to be operator-replaceable in most cases. Which approach is more complex?
As for funding the investment in the necessary inkjet R&D: this is not an issue, in my view. As long as digital page volumes are growing at double-digit rates, as they seem to be right now, many vendors will be fighting for their share of that growing pie and the returns will be good for the majority of them. If I were a press vendor, I bet I would have an easier time coming up with an ROI for inkjet development than for further offset development.
Let me be clear: I am not “anti-offset” and I would change my view of offset’s role in the future if I encountered a compelling pro-offset argument. But from where I sit, most developments seem to favor digital printing and, in the long run, inkjet rather than toner.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 02, 2009
George,
OK now we are able to provide a bit more clarity to our views. This is good.
I see the cut off between ink jet (or toner) type concepts and offset being at a different point. My view is that the potential for web offset is in the medium-short to long runs and ink jet in the very-short to medium-short run range. At the very short run range it makes sense that a slower press can compete with a faster offset press due to the savings in plate material and the almost instant change from on job to another.
The real loser could be sheetfed offset. Sheetfed offset now requires a lot of steel to just move the light weight piece of paper from one station to another. Add to that, if one wants to print both sides, the press has to be long. Right now there are web offset presses that print 4/4 with a vertical web path that do not take up much room.
So for both of us the cross-over point is critical to our views. If the cross-over point is low, ink jet will not be able to justify high investments in future development but on the other hand the press speeds will not need to be so high because of the performance at the change over from on job to another.
To move the cross-over point higher (longer runs) then more ink jet development costs will be needed. This becomes an economic question that is difficult to answer in detail but I would guess that the higher absolute profit is being made in the higher volume work above the cross-over point. The profit percentage might be higher for the very short run but more overall money is probably being earned as the run length increases.
It is this source of funds that will have to eventually support the development costs of any new technology. Kodak gave up on film because it showed no great future and if Kodak sees that ink jet will not have a great future, it will give up on that too. Heidelberg has not shown it can do much else and is stuck with building presses and supplying consumables. It has painted itself into a corner but at least for the short term, printers know that it will be there for the traditional offset printers.
Your argument about offset replacing letterpress is faulty. It was not comparing apples to apples. Yes offset is more complicated but it also provided more performance in image quality. In spite of the complexity, the market went for the higher quality of coloured images. With the ink jet to offset comparison, the argument is that offset would be replaced with a potentially similar image quality process that is more complicated. There is no incentive for the market to pay more and risk more for a new process that only matches the image quality of offset. Marketing wise, this is a tougher sell. The marketers might have to stretch the truth a bit to sell this technology. This would only work for a short time and eventually the market will determine the out come.
The argument about the complexity of CTP is partially correct. It is complex but it is here now and a printer has multiple suppliers available. CTP is also not in the press and therefore its speed and reliability is not as critical. Ink jet technology would be in the press and must work perfectly. But I would generally agree with your view for short run production although, distant future hopes of having a rewritable plate for offset would make ink jet an even harder sell in the short run area.
As far as total investment costs go, I would have to also differ on this. As I stated in the earlier post, about 80% of the potential performance in getting to colour in 20 to 30 impressions can be done my modifying existing offset presses. If a press manufacturer was seriously interested in doing this, it could be demonstrated within a month and for a very small amount of money. It could have been done decades ago. The problem is that press manufacturers have no imagination. They make expensive engineering solutions but don't understand the fundamentals.
Future press designs will cost money but not as much as one might think and the performance would be better. In the short term, low cost modifications to legacy presses can improve them to the extent that it will be harder for ink jet to find the economic cross-over point in time.
I also try to be impartial on this subject. I do not love offset any more than any other process. I like processes in general but I base my views on the knowledge I have developed over a long time on the potential of offset and manufacturing in general. I know where offset should go and where it can go. But that is not enough.
What is needed is the participation of suppliers, such as press manufacturers and the interest of the printing industry in general. If you don't believe fundamental improvements can be made, they won't be made. Experts have given up on the offset process because they can't see what needs to be done.
The printing industry has always used the tactic of avoidance as opposed to understanding of try to get around the issues in offset. Going to waterless or single fluid ink or closed loop colour control and now ink jet and toner, are avoidance measures instead of putting some effort into understanding what the problem is with offset. After all this time, the industry can not rationally explain the process. They can only describe the observations. There is perpetual confusion on what is needed to be done.
In the market, press manufacturers should be interested in offset's potential because it could be a way of breaking out of the stalemate situation and not only survive but to prosper and increase market share. Ink jet press developers should be interested to at least know what they are going to be up against.
It will be interesting times.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 02, 2009
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
As Erik said, this is good.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the new ability of print to print directly from a database.
Both sheet fed and web have static masters. Although I understand that might already be changing with inkjet add ons to offset presses.
But, once digital is freed from focusing on direct mail, there are many growth areas in education, health and government.
Just to share one personal experience.
About 5 years ago I worked on a project to deliver customized textbooks to students who had failed some high stakes standardized test. The contents of the workbook was determined by which questions the students answered incorrectly.
As I remember, the run was about 30,000 customized workbooks. It seems that with very little other intervention, the test scores on the repeat test went up over 15%.
Given the renewed emphasis on education, I have to believe that this will be a significant growth area.
By George Alexander on Jan 04, 2009
Michael:
You make a good point. I agree that variable-data printing (not just for direct mail) is a great specialty for printers. It is a much smaller niche than short-run printing, and is not growing as fast, but that's because everything about it is harder: selling the job, pricing the job, preparing the data, running the job efficiently, doing QA on the job. Not too many printers want to take on these tasks, so those that do are protected to some extent from competition.
But printers doing specialized variable work must make sure to charge plenty for their services! This work cannot be priced like other printing.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 04, 2009
George:
The opportunity is that database publishing has a very long tail. Once the information infrastructure has been built, the marginal cost of the intellectual work is minimal. Consider Google.
You say, "It is a much smaller niche than short-run printing, and is not growing as fast, but that’s because everything about it is harder". Smaller no doubt from the point of view of the 30,000 + 3,000 you mentioned in the earlier post. Harder for printers, yes.
But from the point of view of the coming global information needs of education, health and government I think it is the next big thing ...for someone.
My opinion is that printers have to network with those who are experts in their fields. This is the huge necessary culture shift.
The rules of a Google-Mart economy are not the rules of the Auto economy. The new rules are network or stagnate.
By Andy McCourt on Jan 04, 2009
Gentlemen,
That such a great debate should be aired while most folks are still on holiday is a shame...I guess the 'stalwarts' just get right back to work after the festivities! This began as a Kodak blog following a stinging article by Shannon Cross. It roped-in inkjet's future in volume commercial printing and has evoked some deeply-thought out perspectives on it's potential and that of offset. My view is that Kodak's Stream programme is just as valid as any other manufacturer's DOD, MEMS, Latex, Phase-Change, Aqueous or Pigment-based IJ, and adds another choice to the IJ equation (when it arrives). As I now derive income from Oce; I must declare this to you before saying:
1) High volume database-driven inkjet printing is already happening at several sites around the world - look no further than Direct Group (US); Cromwell (Slovenia/EU); Selecta (Italy) and others I can not mention. They all use Oce JetStream presses, in full colour at 600 x 600dpi and with 100% variable data per page at anything up to 2,700 (A4) ppm.
2) The above sites have all experienced a rapid filling of capacity and have ordered additional JetStreams.
3) In the case of Cromwell, their 2 x JetStreams replaced offset presses.
4) 2009 will see at least one newspaper application for JetStream - bringing in PDFs from various international publishers and printing them digitally in a popular holiday destination area, with advertising sold locally. This saves freight costs, fuel, wastage, delivers higher quality and creates new revenue from ads that would never otherwise be sold.
5) On the monochromatic digital side, Ingram Lightning Source are already printing over 50 million digital books per year in the USA and EU, using 20+ Oce VarioStream 9000(toner) series presses. Average run length of same book is 1.8 copies!
6) Bell & Bain bookprinters of Glasgow, Scotland (est 1831) now print vast quantities of journals, manuals and books - digitally using VP9250 and Mueller Martini Sigmaline and report average digital run length at 300 copies, compared with overall offset/digital run length of 1,800.
Friends, it is happening now, already and today. We are living through an epoch-changing shift in printed communications and not even the tip of the digital iceberg has yet been exposed. Yes, offset will be around for many many years - it suits so many applications in both sheet and web forms. But more applications are suiting digital, and in highest volumes that means Inkjet. The evidence is already emerging in the field and I am 100% certain the IJ juggernaut will not be arrested, just as I am 100% certain offset will not die before I do.
By Pat Berger on Jan 04, 2009
Ink jet printed papers are not recyclable into the main steam.
This has been know for over 10 years.
The following link will enlighten the readers on this tremendous problem. Which I believe has the potential to kill it.
http://www.ingede.com/
Until this recycling problem is fixed I wouldn't mention a word about the process.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 04, 2009
Andy
Thanks for the information. I know that it's a repeat of a previous post, but Screen also seems to be a player.
Graphic Arts Online:
http://www.graphicartsonline.com/article/CA6610806.html?nid=3470&rid=219616614
Newsworld Corp. selected an AlphaGraphics franchise to print U.S. copies of the U.K.’s Daily Mail and Screen Truepress Jet520, The publisher will buy a Screen Truepress Jet520 on-demand newsprint solution with a dedicated Standard Hunkeler finishing system to be installed at Dayton, NJ-based printer. AlphaGraphics parent company Pindar is based in the U.K
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 04, 2009
Pat,
You raise a good point. But to me it suggests that it's time to revisit the recycling issue.
At a discussion over at
http://deadtreeedition.blogspot.com/2008/11/awash-in-paper.html
there was a comment as follows:
"Most waste paper was being sold through brokers to the China market, where it was used to manufacture construction materials."
Has anyone done a full carbon footprint on recycled paper for printing?
From the save the tree point of view, it's clear to me that paper companies are the best tree farmers on the planet and incented to continue that practice.
Maybe the more intelligent approach might be to find other non printing uses to keep paper out of the waste stream.
Construction material? Cardboard? Pressed paper products?
This is way out of my field of expertise. Any light you might shed on the subject would be welcome.
By Andrew Tribute on Jan 05, 2009
I'm amazed at the discussion that has taken place following my initial article on investment strategies for Kodak. I'm surprised we have only heard from one inkjet manufacturer and nothing from an offset supplier, particularly in reaction to the comments by Erik. Inkjet for medium to high performance color is still very new with only the Kodak Versamark providing real customer experience, however the new inkjet presses introduced in recent years that can challenge offset for quality will start to answer the question of how well this technology will challenge offset. We also have yet to see production output using the Kodak STREAM inkjet technology that was previewed at drupa. This appears to set a new standard in terms of both speed and quality for inkjet printing in the move towards challenging offset in areas other than short run and variable data printing.
One of the latest posts concerns the recyclability of inkjet output. I have just written a paper on this subject that will shortly be published by Infotrends. In this, following discussions with both the paper makers and press suppliers I am convinced that aqueous pigmented ink inkjet printed output will shortly be recyclable. We are already seeing the output from the HP Inkjet Web Press is recyclable apparently because the press prints a bonding agent on the exact area of the paper where an inkjet spot is to be printed. There is a major amount of work currently under way by the press suppliers and others to eliminate the inkjet recycability problem. It would be good if the newspaper printers that use the flexo process would take the same responsible attitude to the recycling problem as the suppliers of the inkjet presses.
By Pat Berger on Jan 05, 2009
Erik is correct about offset printing changing and becoming and even more cost effective technology.
With inkjet you have hundreds and even thousands of ink jet heads in one assembly the chances of a few not working correctly will always be there. You will have to decide at what point is the quality still good enough with a few heads not firing correctly.
Inkjet has come a long way. The technology will always be maintenance prone. There are an over abundance of things that must occur for it to work correctly.
Offset will continue it's simplistic and almost maintenance free when compared to inkjet and xerography.
By George Alexander on Jan 05, 2009
Pat, I hear what you are saying, but I don’t share your view of how “simple” offset is. Perhaps this is just a difference in our definitions of "simple", but it could also be that your familiarity with offset is causing you to ignore a lot of complexity. Ask yourself the following questions:
Do plate suppliers always provide unblemished plates with the same sensitivity as the last batch?
Do CTP systems always function correctly in imaging the plates?
Do plate processors always function properly?
Are ink-key settings always easy to do?
Is initial registration perfect on every job?
Do offset blankets wear out?
Do cylinder-to-cylinder pressures go out of adjustment?
Can intense colors in one area of the plate “starve” other areas, causing them to print incorrectly?
Are there ever problems with ink-water balance?
Does the color change in the course of the print run?
These are all questions that reveal the underlying complexity of the offset printing process. None of these problems occur in inkjet printing. Yes, it is true that inkjet nozzles can clog (and the engineers are hard at work on designs that minimize this) but you can already find many examples of high-quality inkjet printing. After all, it is a standard proofing technology for offset these days.
So when you describe offset as “simple” and inkjet as “maintenance prone” I just have to disagree. When I look at the offset process as a whole, from raw plate to printed sheet, it seems an order of magnitude more complex than inkjet.
By Michae Jahn on Jan 05, 2009
I wanted to make a statement here related to Kodak and other "consumable based" companies (like Agfa) - this thread has turned into a debate about printing.
When I say consumable based, Kodak - like AGFA, DuPont and FUJI - histrocally making lots of money running profitable film lines - now that CTP replaced CTF, well, coating aluminum and selling CTP plates is no where near as profitable. I just do not see companies like Kodak being able to make this transition - what is the cash cow consumable in an inkjet world for Kodak ?
By Pat Berger on Jan 05, 2009
George
I do think offset is the simplest system. Having used letter press,offset,letterset,inkjet and toner systems
Do plate suppliers always provide unblemished plates with the same sensitivity as the last batch?
Ours have been good for over 5 years. I think we have only had 15 to 20 bad plates in that time period.
Do CTP systems always function correctly in imaging the plates?
Yes our present systems has imaged correctly for 8 years. With proper cleaning of optics.
Do plate processors always function properly? Yes,except for 2 sensors and 2 pumps in 8 years.
Are ink-key settings always easy to do? Yes
Is initial registration perfect on every job? Within 2 row of dots at 300lpi. There are always exceptions in 10 years using CTP 25 to 30 plates out of register.
Do offset blankets wear out? I don't know we usally have a smash before it wears out. If you use the correct chemistry they will last for millions of impressions.
Do cylinder-to-cylinder pressures go out of adjustment? They can as can any adjustment on any machine offset or inkjet or toner.
Can intense colors in one area of the plate “starve” other areas, causing them to print incorrectly? Depends on what chemistry and ink you are using. If the correct chyemistry is used it is not a problem.
Are there ever problems with ink-water balance? Depends on what chemistry you are using. Again not a problem with correct chemostry.
Does the color change in the course of the print run? Yes, and every process does be it offset,inkjet,toner,flexo.gravure. Inkjet and toner based printer usally self calibrate every 50 to 100 impressions, if not the color would be all over the place.
I have come to these conclusions after 40 years of hands on experience in this industry.
Pat
By Dave Kauffman on Jan 05, 2009
An excellent thread. Coming as I do from the workflow side of things, I can set aside some of the voiced concerns as to rate and degree of adoption of digital print from the ink and paper perspective. From the workflow side, it is reminiscent of the early 90's where the divergence of file formats drove investments in hardware. Just as PDF helped snap most workflows into line, the introduction of PDF/VT will let customers bridge these current and future digital-offset hybrid workflows.
Ms. Cross' remarks remind us why some people are analysts and some are CEO's.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 05, 2009
And if it turns out that Erik is correct in his discussion of the inking system he has invented and patented it sounds like it could be more stable still.
Ah..the wonders of a mature technology.:) It brings to mind the exquisitely evolved information appliance, we call a book.
By George Alexander on Jan 05, 2009
Pat, I acknowledge your superior experience. And I certainly understand that, with the right equipment, procedures, and consumables, offset printing can be very reliable.
What I was trying to say though (and poorly, now that I look back) is that all of these potential problems -- and many more -- have to be prevented, solved, or managed in order for offset printing to work. For inkjet, there are only a few potential problems to be dealt with (notably nozzle clogging). To me, that makes inkjet the "simpler" technology. But I can see that we will have to agree to disagree on this.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 05, 2009
George,
I think another consideration in judging the simplicity of offset has to do with the "good enough" principle. It does not always take the full complement of sophistication to produce work that is "good enough" for a particular market. That enables a more flexible business strategy.
In any case, once one steps back from the output device itself, the production eco system is quite different.
Inkjet will mean that at least for a while, the technology will be "improving." Which requires upgrades and a continuous process of changing workflow. Add to that changing software and computer requirements and the complexity can be daunting.
I'm thinking of what we went through as Adobe used the industry for beta testing. It wasn't pretty.
By Rick Lindemann on Jan 05, 2009
Based on past experience, Head Refurbishment and Maintenance Charges are VersaMark's cash cow. The ink and replenisher/cleaning fluids (their only real consumables) are actually pretty reasonable.
By Andy McCourt on Jan 05, 2009
Good Morning Gents (at least in Australia),
Pat, the Ingede recycling debate has been aired here and elsewhere and it is quite clear (as Andy Tribute says), that IJ printed paper can, will and in fact is already being recycled. The issue was de-inking, not recycling. I personally called the largest one-line paper recycler/manufacturer in the world (Visy Industries Smithfield plant here in Sydney), and was assured they make no differentiation between processes, toner, IJ, offset - it all gets recycled BUT into cartonboard and testliner- still a 100% recyclability though. For white-to-white paper recycling, IJ may require additional washing, floatation and/or UV bleaching but the HP bonding agent AT mentions eliminates the need for even this.
So, Pat, I am afraid your post about 'can not be recycled into the main stream' and 'don't even mention the process' is in this aspect, not accurate. Kodak, Oce, HP and Ricoh Infoprint have formed an Inkjet de-inking working group in Europe to work with mills and recyclers to make sure the increasing output from high-volume IJ goes through the processes smoothly.
You also wrote:
"With inkjet you have hundreds and even thousands of ink jet heads in one assembly the chances of a few not working correctly will always be there"....sorry Pat, the Oce JetStream is configured to use less than 20 (various configurations). Strobe Cameras are employed to monitor nozzle-firing and they are proving very, very reliable. This link may be helpful to you in leawrning more about the printheads used by all inkjet manufacturers: http://members.whattheythink.com/evt/08/drupa/drupa08tribute6.cfm .
Michael: yes absolutely, Screen is an important player in the higher volume IJ sector and they also manufacture the Infoprint 5000 for Ricoh/IBM. At 64 m/min, the TruePress Jet520 is a lot slower than Oce,HP and Kodak but they can run at 128 m/min at reduced resolution. Is the Alphagraphics/Daily Mail machine in New York yet? Haven't heard since the initial announcement.
I think the nub of this debate is that focussing on process rather than application is counter-productive to the progress of the industry. Printing is printing, and we now have a wonderful opportunity to re-invent the public perception of it with progressive digital trechnologies, sophisticated web(www)-enabled workflows, envirionmentally positive practices and, above all, targeted, relevant information delivered to willing recipients.
By Pat Berger on Jan 05, 2009
Andy good points.
White to white recycling is what I was referring to. I should have stated that. Also I should have been more precise and mentioned the decrease value of recycled fiber for container board verses white to white. On the wholesale level clean white recycled fiber is worth $.04 to $.06 per pound. While contaminated mix recycled fiber is worth $.01 to $.025 per pound. This is for small producers or a load 4 tons or less. At these low price levels it becomes economically more prone to land fill. The labor required for recycling isn't cost effective.
We are very fortunate, in our area mixed fiber is picked up for free and recycled. White to white recycling is also done as a service with little or no cost. These services have been for small producers only usually under 3000 pounds per week.
In the ink jet area I should have stated nozzles of which there are hundreds and in some cases thousands on a head. Again I should have been more precise with my wording.
Andy thank you for pointing this out.
Pat Berger
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 05, 2009
Andy M,
Not sure about whether the Screen app is up and running. Maybe one of the great journalists on WTT will check it out and give us the story.
Meanwhile, I think you are at the crux of the matter, and nicely said to boot.
"Relevant information delivered to willing recipients"
By Andy McCourt on Jan 05, 2009
Hi Pat and Michael,
Thanks for your kind comments. Nozzle-blocking is indeed the bane of IJ but it's not the issue it once was due to use of redundant nozzles, new materials and better inks.
The de-inking issue is particulary relevant to the proposed production of newspapers with IJ presses. Newsprint contains exceptionally high ratios of recovered fibre (74% here in Australia), and this is a vital part of the newspaper industry's 'green' credentials. So, for IJ newspapers to succeed on a grand scale, they need to be made mostly from themselves; say 70% old newspapers and 30% virgin fibre, rather than "down-cycled" to brown and gray products. This places the onus on the IJ manufacturers to work with the recycling mills - which is exactly what they are doing. There is no doubt they will get there; if not already. MJ-thanks for update on the Alphagraphics/Newsworld install. I am sure an intrepid WTT bloodhound will pick up the trail.
On a light note: I have a complete set of 'Penrose's Annuals of the Graphic Arts' - 1895 to 1982. I recall an article from early 1900s, questioning the suitability of "India-Rubber Offset" for serious printing! Hey, wouldn't it have been great if those guys had blogging then - I guess they'd be exploring similar issues to us?
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 05, 2009
A full collection of Penrose ! How about getting Google to scan them so we can all search and find some great stuff :)
By Andy McCourt on Jan 05, 2009
Michael - Re: Penroses/Google - that really made me smile! The irony of it.... arch online copyright flaunters delivering a great service to the print communications fraternity/sorority! It would be a mammoth task as there are so many tip-ins, fold-outs and pocketed items to withdraw. 74 volumes with the bigger ones 300+ pages. It could be done as they are, I think, out of copyright (Lund Humphries was the main publisher and they disappeared) and multi-authored anyway. My 1956 copy is RB Fishenden's (then editor) personal copy, signed by all the contributors -and containing many telegrams and letters of congratulation on the 50th edition (Penrose was not published during war years).
Food for thought - or maybe a searchable DVD or progressively updated website linked to WTT?
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 05, 2009
George,
Your point about your view that offset is more complicated has some validity. Ink jet requires more complicated technology to develop it but running and managing offset does require a lot of attention.
I am an engineer and I view these processes in terms of a manufacturing context. It is quite common that manufacturing processes require a lot of attention to the details of how it is managed and run. This is normal.
It is true that someone can probably run an ink jet press with much less training than someone that runs an offset press or supports that operation. In a manufacturing context, that is not what is important. What is important is the quality level, delivery time and the unit cost of the product produced. In the end, cost is very important and if a process requires more skill and attention than another process but is more cost effective, it will win out.
As an example, waterless offset does not use water and therefore has removed a problem that has plagued printing for a long time. Years ago, common sense might have lead people to think that waterless printing was going to take over and replace conventional offset. What happened. Not much.
Probably because the cost of inks and plates was more for waterless offset than for conventions offset, printers did not change over. Even with all the problems, it was cheaper to run with conventional offset.
The other issue was that one set of problems that the industry could not solve with conventional offset were replaced with another set of problems that were not completely solved either with waterless offset. There is the issue of temperature control of the ink needed for the effective control of ink only going to the image area. This added cost. Also, removing water from the process did not completely avoid density variation because the fundamental cause was still a part of the press ink feed design.
As one makes both processes, ink jet and offset perform better, this will diminish the cost of labour. The majority of cost will be inks and paper. I tend to think that offset can deal with lower cost paper and inks better than ink jet can and therefore can maintain an advantage for many applications. Not all of course.
You commented about the difficulty of setting ink keys. Technically this is not a problem even though some less skilled operators without some kind of ink key presetting capabilities will have problems. Technically setting ink does not require high accuracy.
To analyse how accurate an ink feed system has to be to be set so it will result in print that is within +/- 0.05 density points for the solid patch, all one has to do is look at the density/ink curve for that ink on that paper. This curve is basically the relationship with density to ink film.
With this curve, you pick the density target you want and draw a line down to the ink value. Then find the + 0.05 density point and the - 0.05 density point and draw lines down to the ink value. Then calculate the percent of ink change above and below the target value.
For a conventional offset ink on coated paper, the change in ink values is about +/- 8%. For newspaper ink on newsprint, it is about +/- 12%. The point here is that the range of ink feed is very large to get within the tolerance. Total range is 16% and 24% for the above examples.
The fact that now it is difficult for an operator even with ink key presetting to get to the right values at the very beginning is due the the ink key presetting calculation being wrong and the ink feed system not being able to feed ink in a consistent and predictable way.
During a run, now the colour can drift off but that is not because the process requires tight control but because the ink feed systems are not capable of delivering ink within the very large ink feed ranges above.
As I said in earlier posts, correcting these problems does not cost a lot. The very practical potential is that offset presses can be modified so that when one starts them, they will go directly into the desired density target ranges and run consistently within those ranges for the whole run, without the operator making any adjustments to ink feed.
When the the ink keys are set to the correct values and the ink feed is positive, you then basically have a keyless system.
You commented about other problems such as starvation ghosting. Yes this is a problem and it is related to the roller train design. The Anicolor press from Heidelberg and the Karat press from KBA, do not have this problem. A press can be designed to eliminate these problems and some improvement can be done even on existing presses.
There are opportunities but they have to be pursued by the press manufacturers if they are going to compete not only against ink jet but also against each other.
Ink jet seems like it will be strong in certain applications but offset can also do some special things. Run inks that produce out of gamut colours and metalics. Who knows what other ink systems will be developed and can be run easily on offset.
By George Alexander on Jan 06, 2009
What a great thread! I have selected some of the interesting points that have been made in various posts and listed them over at Beyond-print.net. If you are interested, here is the URL:
http://www.beyond-print.de/site/content/en/channel_news/news_0736.html
By Andy McCourt on Jan 06, 2009
Hello again all,
If anyone still doubts that we have turned an important corner in the acceptance of high volume, web-feed digital inkjet in the traditional offset/gravure environments; this story just broke on UK's printweek:
http://www.printweek.com/PrintWeekDaily/News/871167/Polestar-completes-4m-digital-spend-UKs-first-JetStream-2200/?DCMP=EMC-PrintWeekDailyBulletin
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 06, 2009
thanks for the link.
By Gareth Ward on Jan 07, 2009
Gentlemen
Might I point out something that seems to have been missing from the discussion on the merits of litho or inkjet, something which drags us back to the original point about the analyst’s comments? Litho is an open system, inkjet a closed one. Kodak’s business model is based on Gillette’s: sell the inkjet heads and enjoy a recurring income from the ink. Inkjet at present requires integration between heads, inks and substrate to obtain the best results. Laying down a bonding agent helps expand the substrates that can be used, but it is not feasible to use one supplier’s ink with another supplier’s inkjet head. Compare this to the litho world where plates and inks are interchangeable. Would Heidelberg be in the financial mess it is if it could predict recurring revenues from the plates, inks and other consumables that run on its presses? And printers like this freedom of choice. Securing a better deal on consumables is a skill they have acquired, allowing them a wafer of extra margin over the guy down the road. It’s easier than acquiring good marketing skills.
Inkjet locks them in, whatever the merits of the technology in terms of quality and performance. This is of course good news for Kodak and their ilk because there is ongoing revenue with every print engine sold and the competition is shut out. The decision they need to make is how the revenue cake should be divided between the razor and the razor blades to maximise income.
The question then is whether this aspect of inkjet will help or hinder its development and uptake. Is the widespread success of litho due to the wide choice of press, ink and plates that are available and the ability to switch between them? Will inkjet producers eventually find themselves in the position that type founders were in the early 1980s when fonts and imagesetters were locked together before being swept away by PpostScript?
Inkjet as a series of technologies is far from mature and one of the skills needed (with the assistance of consultants no doubt) will be choosing the right technology, uv, Latex, Mems, Stream and so on, for the application. I’m not sure that many printers yet recognise this.
To blow my own trumpet a little, there is a company here in the UK which is producing work that offers the quality of litho on inkjet presses built to its own specification (http://www.printmag.co.uk/articles/ceo-interviews-section/ceo-interviews/323.aspx). It’s an eye-opening place.
By David Motheral on Jan 07, 2009
The printing industry is still adjusting to the introduction of new technology, computers. This creeping pace is too slow to expect Kodak to regularly introduce new technology when our industry does not adapt at any faster pace. Kodak must, as it always has, look to the future and investing there, but we must insist they keep themselves healthy and strong in the short term.
I for one am very proud of how the company handled the conversion from film to digital. Management has done a great job. Introduction of the new Kodak printer was shear genus. This product should displace the competition over time with both quality and cost.
I now hope management realizes the need to preach the message of change and automation to the mass of printers who refuse to embrace technology completely. Kodak must take the lead in educating its customers and bear the cost of that education as sales expense, if it hopes to continue to market and expand it's sales base.
The problem is keeping the companies best minds. Talent, knowledge and experience is not replaceable. Sales and marketing executives have to maintain a reputation and creditability or our industry will move backwards as it becomes harder to justify the high cost of technology when really know how to use it.
Printing industry executives without vision will never understand how to sell and compete using the technology if Kodak doesn't do the teaching. There are not enough industry executive with that vision to keep Kodak alive without Kodak driven education.
I have been personally involved with Kodak product developers and have found them amazingly bright, industrious and attentive to customer needs. On the other hand sales and marketing reps have
for the most part left me without confidence in the company at all.
This is the arena that needs the most attention from Kodak executives if they are to weather the short haul and profit from the long haul decisions they are so good at making.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 07, 2009
Andrew stated:
” I’m surprised we have only heard from one inkjet manufacturer and nothing from an offset supplier, particularly in reaction to the comments by Erik.”
It is no surprise to me that press manufacturers have not responded to defend themselves. A marketing professional from a press supplier might respond and say how advanced their technology is and at how much they have worked to make the best possible technology but that would be the usual marketing talk. Basically not true because they did thing too hard.
What one would not see are engineers, who design presses, coming on line to discuss and defend the state of the art in press design. They wouldn’t do it because they know that they would be sitting ducks because they could defend how the technology is designed to do the job of printing consistently and predictably. They could not defend themselves when knowledgeable and pointed questions are put to them.
They would be forced to admit that conventional offset presses do not print consistently in different parts of the sheet. They have already admitted this in an indirect way. One feature promoted for the new Anicolor press is that it does print consistently in different parts of the sheet. The implication being that conventional offset presses don’t. And by the way, one can not have an accurate ICC profile if the press that prints the image can not print consistently in all location of the image.
They would be forced to admit that one can not get an accurate zero set point on a conventional press. Again this is admitted indirectly. Goss and other suppliers of positive ink feed systems state that zero setting is inherent in the positive feed system because the zero point is when the pumps stop feeding ink. The implication is that on conventional presses, the zero set point can not be accurately determined. The zero set point is critical because it is the datum for the ink key presetting values. If a datum is not accurate this affects the whole range of the ink key values.
With further discussions, they would also have to admit that their state of the art presses still do not have any mechanical components that can be set that are directly related to the amount of ink that is fed into the press’s high speed roller train. Setting an ink key does not set the ink feed. The volume of ink transferred into the roller train is affected by water, temperature, press speed, humidity etc.. They would have to admit that it is not only ink/water balance but also ink/temperature, press speed, humidity, air movements, etc. balance.
This can be seen in existing presses. Most web presses with open ink fountains have non linear ink fountain roller speeds. As the press doubles in speed, the ink fountain roller speed might go up 2.7 times faster to counter the drop in ink feed rate as the press goes faster. Waterless presses have density variations that are affected by temperature variations that affect the ink feed.
I could go on and on but the point is that the press designers would not be able to defend their technology. This does not mean that they design poorly built machines. For the most part they are well design machines. It means that they don’t understand what needs to be done to build a press that performs better.
Press manufacturers do not understand the process of printing well but they do understand about the design and manufacture of machines. I have heard this directly from engineers at one firm and a colleague of mine has heard it at another press manufacturer.
Competitive juices don’t flow in the engineering departments at press manufacturers. Other industries that have always been in highly competitive environments, invest great sums to push the limits. Aircraft engine manufacturers will spend 100s of millions of dollars on trying to obtain 1% in efficiency improvement. Skunk Works type groups work to innovate quickly and economically. Computer manufacturers are working on one, two or three generations of technologies into the future to obsolete what they have in the present. They and others can do this because they can follow the rules, which have been developed by science, for what can be done to improve performance.
The rules to describe printing performance in offset presses was never developed and therefore press manufacturers have not been able to develop new concepts that make the old concepts obsolete. Instead, press development has taken dead end routes that will not lead to big successes. Some of these are, DI, DICO, Karat, Cortina, Anicolor just to name a few.
The key to opening the door to the future of predictable offset press performance is the demonstrated solution to the ink/water balance problem on offset presses. This would show the true nature of the density control problem being one of mass transport of ink as opposed to a mythology of chemistry. Offset lithography is not a chemical process. It would show that the press can be designed to perform in a mathematically predictable way.
The technical problem is simple but the real barrier is the psychological belief that the industry has been told for ever, that ink/water balance and density variation, are inherent in the process. This false belief has prevented rational thought and discussion and has allowed all kinds of poor performance to be blamed on this Myth. It has also allowed scores of irrelevant technical papers to be written and has even supported the reputation and careers of experts that have produced such useless papers.
Since offset printing does follow the rules of Nature, eventually these rules as they apply to how the press can work, will become known and acknowledged. At that time, people will be able to look back on many decades of so called “Graphic Arts and Technology Research” and wonder what these researchers were thinking and why could they not see what turned out to be so simple.
In the near future, press manufacturers need to rethink the process for fun and profit.
By George Alexander on Jan 07, 2009
Thanks, Gareth, for the link to the terrific piece on the remarkable work that Real Digital is doing with inkjet in the UK. For those of you who skipped over Gareth's link, I'll repeat it here:
http://www.printmag.co.uk/articles/ceo-interviews-section/ceo-interviews/323.aspx
Still doubtful about inkjet? This is the article you need to read!
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 07, 2009
David-
With all due respect. I have to disagree when you say, Kodak". . . needs to preach the message of change and automation to the mass of printers ... . Kodak must take the lead in educating its customers and bear the cost of that education as sales expense"
After having spent 7 years "educating" designers about project management and production, I think I've learned that "education" is impossible, unless the "student" wants to learn. It's ugly, but there it is.
What I found does work, sometimes, is to listen closely and try to figure out what the student wants to do. Then help them do that with as much intelligence as possible.
Instead of investing in "education," it might work better to invest the money in proof of concept projects.
Once a project brings some money in the door, no further education will be necessary.
By Andy McCourt on Jan 07, 2009
Good to see Mr Ward on this forum - Happy New Year Gareth. I agree with George - the Real Digital article is terrific. Those fellows are seriously smart. You wrote they have iGens too - any comment as to the comparitive output from the 'self-built' IJ and iGen. What I am getting at is toner-vs-IJ at its best.
I liked the bit about 'no click charge because we built it ourselves' In reality they must have a cost-per-page for maintenance, ink, parts, printheads though eh?
By Andy McCourt on Jan 08, 2009
Just in and you read it first on this very appropriate thread. Gentlemen, please see:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-life/articles/printers-take-a-stand/2009/01/08/1231004155431.html
- Silverbrook's MEMS technology looks like it is finally going to hit the market in 2009. A page-a-second in a desktop printer. Maybe this is why Kodak is dumping cheap printers and ink on the DTP market? If anyone reading this is at the CES show in Vegas, can we have a comment on the quality of output?
Kai Silverbrook's R&D HQ is about 5 miles from where I am sitting, but it's like Fort Knox - you can't get inside. He's an ex-Canon boffin with hundreds of US patents under his belt. Looks like he's hitting paydirt soon.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 08, 2009
Andy,
Thank you for the scoop.
Here's the part that caught my eye.
"Existing colour printers capable of printing a colour page every second are large enterprise models costing in excess of $10,000.
Beswick said Memjet allowed printer manufacturers to produce compact home models with similar speeds in the $US300-$US500 price range."
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 08, 2009
Garth,
Thank you for the link to the article that appeared in The Print Business. FYI, I did a post this am about it on my blog.
By Jack on Jan 08, 2009
Andy, I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. STREAM appears to be a truly groundbreaking technology. I also read Shannon's comments but I didn't think she specifically suggested that Kodak cut investment in STREAM. Rather, I thought she was less specific, stating that she didn't believe that Kodak could continue investing the necessary R&D in all of its digital growth businesses (NexPress, consumer inkjet, STREAM, etc) and might have to make some choices. I take it you interpreted her comments differently, or had access to some that I didn't see?
By Andy McCourt on Jan 08, 2009
Michael,
Indeed the pricepoint of Memjet (or more accurately whichever manufacturer/s adopt the printhead technology), is outstanding. It makes one think of the possibility of daisy-chaining, say, 8 together (like the cluster printer model), for a $4,000 480ppm full colour print array. Plus the cost of the server and software of course. EFI taking note?
A lot would depend on the quality of the mechanical build to handle 8-16 hour per day running, but if a unit fails, $500 is not a lot to invest in maintenance?
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 08, 2009
Andy,
It sounds a lot like parallel processing with lots of redundancy. It may turn out that the hard part is the paper handling and parsing the job.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 08, 2009
Just one more. I bought an expensive cluster print system back in the day ..around 1995. It was a different kind of cluster than I expected.
The software was great. But the paper handling was bad. Try printing 30 copies of a 200 page book and get a couple of paper jams on machine 2 and 4. Then making sure you didn't miss a page. Not pretty.
But this should have a much more reliable paper path. So just to push your math a bit.
For $6000 to $10,000 you get 20 machines producing 1200 pages per minute.
I always keep in mind that Google built the best server farms on the planet by networking off the shelf PC's.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 08, 2009
Gareth and George,
The article on Real Digital was very good. It is a real example of innovation. I think it is great that they can develop their own press. That shows a capability to think things through.
From the description of the operation, I think they have hit the sweet spot for ink jet printing. Variable print with data bases providing targeted information. That is just what ink jet can do best but offset can not really be in that business so it is not competing directly.
It was also interesting to see the great care and probably great expense made in making the environment match the sensitivity of the technology. It's not needed so much for offset but fits well with Real Digital's commitment to ink jet production.
This shows an interesting trend. A short time ago, RR Donnelley announced that they had developed their own web ink jet line. Now Real Digital has. It seems that it is much easier to develop an ink jet line for these specific applications that one would first expect.
Few offset printers would consider making their own offset presses. They hardly even think of experimenting with new ideas and modifying the ones they have.
If digital printers can start to build their own presses by going around the digital press suppliers and talking directly with the ink jet developers, then that does not sound so good for Kodak and the others. Maybe soon digital presses will be coming out of hundreds of in-garage development companies. One or two guys buying parts on the Internet and putting presses together in their garage. Could happen.
Have you also noticed that the interesting ink jet presses are web presses. It seems that way to me.
Interesting comparisons.
Offset Printers
Printers do not innovate and develop their own technology.
Run sheetfed and not so much web except for long runs.
Difficulty in developing new business.
Dependent too much on suppliers for help.
Ink Jet Digital Printers
Developing their own technology by assembling components to address specific needs.
Developing new business opportunities that did not exist before or streamlineing existing opportunities.
Running webs ink jet presses which are less complicated mechanically than sheet transfer.
Depending less on suppliers to solve their problems.
Interesting I think.
Adam,
The MEMS ink jet. Interesting for the desk top but I am not sure about it being good for production.
A page a second sounds fast but offset web presses are about 20 to 30 times faster and some would print both sides.
Since the ink jet is full width instead of scanning back and forth, I would guess the individual ink jets do not fire any faster than normal but that the higher speed of printing is due to there being so many of them.
It will be interesting to see how well they do in the market.
By Andrew Tribute on Jan 09, 2009
Let us not get over excited over two items in this long series of posts. The first is Real Digital did not make its own press, it assembled it from a number of supplier's components. The really complex aspect of a high-performance ink jet press is the print engine and the ink feed system. This is basically the same engine as is found in the Agfa Dotrix and it is made and supplied by Agfa. One could say that the design of the Real Digital press has great similarities to the Dotrix Modular press. In the Real Digital press the paper transport and press chassis is from Edale, a supplier of flexo presses. The Dotrix press also has the chassis and paper transport from a flexo press supplier. Real Digital's skill was in defining the system and designing and implementing it.
The second point is we should not get too excited about the Memjet printer and conceptualize what could be created from it. The Memjet team has a great history of technological development and a mass of patents. It does not however have a great record of having products using its technology come to market. The Memjet printer was first previewed about two years ago at an inkjet conference and great claims were made for it at that time, including first deliveries that should have already taken place. What will be interesting to see is which, if any, many suppliers have decided to use the Memjet print heads. The requirements for a 100 ppm desktop are fairly limited. Most people are quite happy with 20 - 30 ppm for printing photos etc. At the first showing of the Memjet the quality was not comparable to products from the established inkjet printer suppliers. Memjet's technology is very interesting an if it can manufacture its page-width print arrays with the required yield and at the predicted cost it will look very interesting. At this time the company is an R&D organization and it does not have an advanced MEMS fabrication plant for building the printheads. Putting a design such as the Memjet head into production is a major task. HP spent over $2 billion bringing its Scalable Printing Technology to market. Then if one wants to build a high-performance web fed press there is a major amount more work to do. Just ask HP, Kodak, Océ and Screen about that.
One thing that does come out from this series of posts is that digital printing is complex and to succeed one needs very different skills than are found in most offset printers. Real Digital in the UK is an example of a digital printing powerhouse. In the UK there a few such digital printing powerhouses and the interesting thing about them is none came from being offset printers. One sees the same in other countries. The world leader in digital photofinishing is Cewe from Germany, HP Indigo's largest customer. Again they were not offset printers before. In the US there are other digital powerhouses such as ColorCentric, again these were not offset printers before. These organizations are built around great IT skills and true entrepreneurship, something not often found in the offset printing world.
We are seeing today many offset printers with a strong presence in digital printing. They are predominantly dependent upon the digital printing suppliers to support them with software and workflow solutions. This enables them to be competitive for a large range of work where the strengths of offering both offset and digital to their customers is a major selling point. For the really sophisticated variable data digital printing and the moves towards transpromo and specialized applications like photofinishing where only digital printing is required, the offset printers with digital as a secondary application don't really get a look in.
By Mike Willis on Jan 09, 2009
Very interesting discussion, but I'd like to make a couple of technical comments.
First of all a great strength of the Stream technology is that it is capable of potentially jetting a much wider range of inks and at higher viscosities than most other technologies. This should lead to a much broader acceptance within the offset community than say the current piezo printers from Screen, Océ etc.
Secondly the Memjet technology from Silverbrook is extremely interesting - and I've been through all of the many thousand patents and applications. But to achieve an acceptable reliability at the moment it seems limited to using dye-based inks. That may change of course, but for the time being it may have a tough time for acceptance outside of consumer markets where text quality is paramount.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 09, 2009
Andy,
You have a supplied a wonderful granular description of the way innovation works out on the ground. Thank you.
Maybe you are pointing at the crux of why digital has been taking so long to go mainstream. The traditional printing business may turn out to be not the people who are going to do.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 09, 2009
So ..if it does turn out the commercial printing industry is not the source of disruptive innovation, let's consider the other players in the communication ecology of the industry.
Andy has done a great job describing how new energy from outside the industry have been in the forefront of large scale successful digital printing.
But, consider the other source of creative energy closer to commercial printers. The design studios.
Dr Joe Webb has pointed us to the data about the resilience and growth of this sector. Perhaps the vendors should look as design studios, not as a printer's customer, but as the vendor's customer.
This could turn out to be an opportunity for commercial printers in the following scenario:
Design studios need to prototype. Iteration is at the center of the design process. So suppose a vendor saw their printers not only as customers but as a sales channel for supplies and equipment.
Deals would have to be made between the present sales channels for below-production equipment. But that does not seem insurmountable.
And if a vendor could set the standards to pretty closely calibrate the below-production equipment to the production equipment, then the commercial printer has a new revenue source.
And they have a customer that is entangled, with hardware, to their own shop.
I can't figure out why this wouldn't be a win-win for everyone. The designers get the ability to iterate quickly. The vendors get a new market segment to sell. The printers get customers on the basis of standards and workflow.
By Andrew Tribute on Jan 09, 2009
One small comment. Take note of the post by Mike Willis. For those of you who don't know Mike he is one of the world's experts on inkjet technology and he runs the leading world conference on this subject. Mike is where I get most of my knowledge about inkjet technologies.
By Andy McCourt on Jan 09, 2009
Andy (T) wrote:
>>These organizations are built around great IT skills and true entrepreneurship, something not often found in the offset printing world.<<
This should be emblazoned on the walls of every offset printer's office. PIRA research shows offset will decline marginally in sales value 2007-2012, while digital will grow in the hundreds of percent. Where would any smart entrepreneur put his or her money?
I saw something similar happen in the 1980s with one-hour photofinishing labs. I was with the Noritsu distributor and we expected an enthusistic uptake from Photo stores, Pharmacies and the usual places where people took their film for developing. Whilst a few did see the opportunity, the majority of installations were in new sites financed by entrepreneurs - doctors, dentists even plumbers. Accountants recommended the opportunity to their clients and new franchise chains emerged. It wasn't until the traditional photofinishing outlets had lost most of their D&P sales that they started installing mini-labs.
Good to hear from Mike Wills and the point on Memjet is well taken. Duplexing with Memjet is another unadressed issue - will it duplex at 60ppm if a second stationary MEM head is installed? Still, we should not forget the speed of early 90s thermal and piezo inkjet printers!
A great deal has been discussed and learned on this thread, at an unexpected time of year. It's been like finding an unopened present under the Christmas tree.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 09, 2009
Andrew stated:
"The first is Real Digital did not make its own press, it assembled it from a number of supplier’s components. The really complex aspect of a high-performance ink jet press is the print engine and the ink feed system."
I would say that they did build a press. They did as much as most modern manufacturers make products. It is very common that manufacturers specify and contract out design and manufacturing of critical components to others.
Now a days, most car manufacturers basically assemble cars and leave the parts and other component design and manufacturing to others. Complicated components for computers are made by Intel or other chip suppliers and assembled by other subcontractors onto boards and then used in the product provided by the "computer manufacturer". This is the common why modern manufacturing works.
If you specify the components and controls and organize the assembly etc. then you built the machine. It sounded like Andrew said it as if it was easy. It is not easy to build a functioning machine but fortunately entrepreneurs can make it happen.
Andrew also stated:
"These organizations are built around great IT skills and true entrepreneurship, something not often found in the offset printing world."
I totally agree with Andy M. that this statement is pure gold. It made me refine by previous views a bit.
People from outside the printing industry can come in with these IT and entrepreneurship skills and succeed. Printers moving to digital printing might fail because they don't have those skills. Digital printing as a technology, on its own, will not guarantee success. People make things successful. I would say that it is not a matter of skills but of aptitude.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 09, 2009
This seems to be the money sentence:
>>These organizations are built around great IT skills and true entrepreneurship, something not often found in the offset printing world.<<
What's a printer to do? Great IT and true entreprenuership take luck and time. It's not something that can be bought.
It takes a team to get this right. Unfortunately the only team that has a good chance is where everyone is a star. Being a star at everything is not likely. Having or growing all stars in one organization is not impossible but takes time.
The most plausible approach is transparent standards based networking with great people. This only needs a change in attitude. But unfortunately the legacy attitude of our industry is mistrust and a culture of worrying about "who owns the customer?."
Maybe our trade associations could take the lead in necessary change in our culture?
By Erik Nikkanen on Jan 09, 2009
Michael says: "What’s a printer to do? Great IT and true entreprenuership take luck and time. It’s not something that can be bought."
Wait a minute. The right people can be bought. :-)
The problem is that the industry does not really want those kinds of people. Over the last 12 years I have had some contact with only a handful of people who had the curiosity and interest to go after improvements in the process. They had interest, analytical skills, vision, a willingness to take risks. All have left the industry. I believe that it was because they were not allowed to do anything different and special.
And yes, you need groups of these kinds of people to get together to combine their talents and specific knowledge to develop practical performance improvements and new concepts. Unfortunately, they are not there. They don't exist on the offset side.
By George Alexander on Jan 10, 2009
"What's a printer to do?"
A good first step is to rub shoulders as often as possible with as many people as you can who are trying to do what you are trying to do. That was one of the main functions of the Seybold Seminars throughout the 1980s (when it was still small enough to serve that purpose well), and the PODI Application Forum has performed that function in recent years. (Those are two examples I am personally familiar with -- I'm sure threre are many other events that also serve this function).
I have watched it happen: someone comes to the event with a spark of a vision and, after talking to people who are enthusiastically doing some of the same things that they want to do, the spark grows into a passion to return home and implement something.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 10, 2009
Maybe the right question to ask is "what are some printers doing, that's working?
The article that Gareth put on the table was eye opening. There must be more stories like that out there that are not part of the conversation.
I also remember Seybold. Yes, they were awesome. One would think those same conversations could now be replicated on the internet. (This conversation is one of the few examples of what I mean.)
But, it might be a problem of proximate incentives,time and focus. Those printers who are doing it well are not incented to share. Those who don't know what to do next, don't have time to ask. The consultants are incented to build their practice. The vendors are incented to sell their stuff. The trade associations are incented to keep the associations alive.
If the focus were on Print, as opposed to printers, I think it would be much easier to see the future that is emerging.
The Great Discourse of the next couple of years is going to be about reorganizing business, education, health and government. Print can play a critical role in these areas.
It might be very helpful if our industry reporters could find and tell the stories of how Print is leading to measurable success in those areas, instead of how Print is selling more stuff.
I'm surprised, for example, not to see more voices of Print in the active discussion about the future of newspapers. There is a good argument to be made that Print connected to the conversations in the Cloud are the next big thing in telling the news.
So...maybe less about printers and more about Print?
By Andy McCourt on Jan 11, 2009
From Michael: >>So…maybe less about printers and more about Print?<<
Amen to that. What was the famous Marshall McLuhan quote? (or misquote ;-) :
"The medium is the message"
Print is the greatest communication medium in the history of mankind (let's assume verbal communication is natural, not an invention.) Today's issue seems to be that this wonderful medium is no longer controlled by the artisans who once held the monopoly on 'The black art'. Sound familiar? Circa 1450 when Scribes held the monopoly on written communication?
I am sure we all know the moving words of Beatrice Warde, but they offer new relevance in this emerging next era of print, so please forgive me for cutting and pasting them:
THIS IS A PRINTING OFFICE
CROSSROADS OF CIVILISATION
REFUGE OF ALL THE ARTS
AGAINST THE RAVAGES OF TIME
ARMOURY OF FEARLESS TRUTH
AGAINST WHISPERING RUMOUR
INCESSANT TRUMPET OF TRADE
FROM THIS PLACE WORDS MAY FLY ABROAD
NOT TO PERISH ON WAVES OF SOUND
NOT TO VARY WITH THE WRITER'S HAND
BUT FIXED IN TIME HAVING BEEN VERIFIED IN PROOF
FRIEND YOU STAND ON SACRED GROUND
THIS IS A PRINTING OFFICE
Of course, you have just read that on the internet; part of the delicious irony and razor's edge ambiguity of being manifestly human. (I do have an original printed version which I treasure more, but share less!)
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 11, 2009
Andy M-
Amen back at you. and
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" - (an American patriotic song written by Frank Loesser )
I try to always keep in focus that the internet is actually interactive TV with search and a telephone connected.
Nice, but it's just a way to talk and view.
Print on the other hand is a way to stop time, to mull and to think. A printed document is the ultimate thinking appliance. It enables compare and contrast. It is a product that implies continuous focused thought. The printed document is also the ultimate search appliance. Unlike web search, we can use the visual parts of our brain to scan and find the "interesting" part. Every try to compare and contrast on the web? Or look at an Edward Tufte info graphic on line?
The temporary advantage of the web have been it's links to the essentially limitless resources of the internet. That will soon come to an end. The new thing is the ability to connect Print to the Cloud, with QR codes, RFID and other emerging technologies that allow cell phones to connect from the physical to the internet.
Long after the internet recedes into the glamour of the telephone or TV, Print will continue in the place of honor that it has earned over the last 500 years. After so many years in the desert, I think it's soon going to be time to get back in the game.
As it has been so nicely said in your cut and paste:
THIS IS A PRINTING OFFICE
CROSSROADS OF CIVILISATION
REFUGE OF ALL THE ARTS
AGAINST THE RAVAGES OF TIME
By Pat Berger on Jan 12, 2009
Extemely good thread. Let's hear from the user's of any of these technologies.
By B D on Jan 13, 2009
I see this large whole in the market place, at the present, that no one seems to be filling. Presently, a large number of printers are utilizing offset to print static images and then use a xerographic device to lay down the variable data. This process is problematic due to the problem of ink migrating into the xerographic machines and creating maintenance problems. It is frustrating to print owners and a profit headache to mfgs. Why is it that no one addresses this hole in the market? One solution is to produce a xerographic machine that can handle pre printed shells. Another solution is to mount an ink jet on to an offset press. One more solution is to create an inkjet that handles cut sheet pre printed shells. Why is it the mfgs. create solutions that the market doesn't ask for? Combine the best of what both technologies can offer. Why someone doesn't see this, I just don't understand.
By Ralf Schlozer on Jan 13, 2009
Vendors at drupa did show a couple of solutions to do just that - mainly based on inkjet imprinting. Kodak incidentally was one of them. Actually imprinting (in-line)solutions on offset presses has been around for years, even Heidelberg toyed with it.
(And I assume that most respectable toner vendors would say that with sufficiently dried ink imprinting is not a problem).
Why don't we see more? Usually it is easier (logistics, error, handling, no overs) to do all print in one go = printing the shell and personalise it. So vendors are focusing on overall digital solutions. If you combine two processes in one press you frequently end up with the worst of both worlds (changeover time for offset and lower speed for digital).
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 13, 2009
I found this the other day at Die Welt. I would think that flash fusing solves this problem:
here's the copy..
Ames, which prints textbooks, lab manuals and other books for higher education publishers, will now benefit from the innovative flash-fusing technology on its newly installed Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) 980 Color Continuous Feed Printing System. Flash-fusing is a process that only heats the toner not the paper. It does not use pressure rollers or make contact with the paper, allowing the device to print on a wide array of paper stocks and specialty media."
By Andy McCourt on Jan 13, 2009
BD - you might be interested in this link
http://www.print21online.com/news-archive/oc-jetstream-sales-take-off-in-europe/
This company - Cromwell in Europe - is printing in full colour, variable data in one pass and installed two Oce JetStreams to replace offset presses that were printing shells. As Ralf S says,better to print the whole job in one pass. Offset shells will eventually become things of the past.
By Brian Nizinsky on Jan 21, 2009
Kodak posted a response to this post on their blog: http://patmcgrew.growyourbiz.kodak.com/default.asp?item=2319288
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 21, 2009
Just an FYI..from PatMcGrew's post..
"And coming soon,we'll be talking about the first generation of Stream solutions and the first customers who will lead the way in bringing those solutions to their customers.In fact, watch for an announcement shortly that talks to about our first monochrome Stream customer and their application!"
By David Motheral on Jan 26, 2009
Michael,
Completely agree with you. "Education" is a huge sales expense. We have partnered with Kodak to offer their Unified Worklfow as an On-Demand model.
We are really pushing with Kodak the idea of SaaS as a POC since education is such a huge expense for sales in any software company.
Hopefully social networks and blogs can play the role of educator in the future and to your point - only to those who want to listen. Education is a huge sales expense and technology such as blogs can help supplant waste in this area.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 27, 2009
David,
My view is that education is a waste of money because it follows a model - chalk and talk - that doesn't work.
The hi tech version of chalk and talk is webinars. Wouldn't it be much more effective to post the slides, and a transcript, then set up a site - maybe a blog format (Like this one)- to ask and answer question using the power of with asynchronous communication? There are many other, better ways to "capture" customer information.
If vendors used 1/5 of the money they spend on "education' and invested it as seed money for high risk innovative projects, they would get a much higher ROI and ROT(return on time -from Dr Joe) plus they could support the incubation space that the industry really needs.
What does work is reflective practice on real projects. It's what we used to call apprenticeships.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 27, 2009
Just one more thought.
"Educating the customer" is code for "blame the customer". It would be good if both our K-12 and college 'education" system would take a lesson from the geeks. "Their are no bad users. There is only bad software." Google learned it. Microsoft not so much.
By David Motheral on Jan 27, 2009
Hi Michael -
Yes, much more effective to set up a social network to elicit feedback.
Check out ours under community on the centripetal homepage. Hope to see you join.
By Michael Josefowicz on Jan 27, 2009
Just signed in. I look forward to looking around when I can next make some time.
I see that you are using ning.com. I've noticed that a lot of discussions on the web are using ning. It seems like a great cloud based functionality. Fast to set up, with lots of features. No talk with IT.
For me, it's a perfect example of the power of SaaS approach. Meanwhile I just read that google is going to release Gdrive pretty soon. That could be the tipping point for cloud computing.
Discussion
Only verified members can comment.