I find it fascinating that RRD (1) has invested mega capital and resources to develop a proprietary inkjet engine in an arena where the deepest technology pockets in the world (HP, OCE, Xerox, Screen, et al) have been coming out with new and upgraded inkjet engines annually for years and (2) yet they are driving their machine with off the shelf software, GMC.
My strategic technology queries are threefold;
(1) While it is clearly to any high volume users' benefit to come up with inexpensive, i.e., nonproprietary, ink and substrates, in order to drive down (further) variable costs do you need to have a proprietary engine to do that?
(2) For generations RRD's technology strategy has been to buy one of everything available to try to learn how to run it well. (In the meantime Quad has bought leading edge tools, mastered them, enhanced the capability, patented those enhancements, and sold the enhancements through a wholly owned subsidiary.)
(3) No printer before has ever invested heavy capital (to my knowledge) in a basic heavy equipment arena - including RRD and Quad - in the face competitive technology giants that will predictably leap frog them by the end of next season.
(4) And finally, it has been a proven fact for the past three decades and since the first generation of digital printing that from an applications perspective, which is the ball game all printers of all size play in, the real profits are made in mastering and developing proprietary software niches NOT hardware niches.
What am I missing here? Maybe Andy can get me back on the practical track.
Discussion
By Erik Nikkanen on Jun 15, 2010
I would say that you are missing a lot. What the printing industry does not understand is that it is not hardware or software that is critical but it is knowledge that is critical.
The printing industry is one of the few large industries that does not develop enough knowledge internally but depends on outside sources such as graphic arts institutions and suppliers. This is the main cause of the terrible highly competitive market place where winners do not win by being smarter than their competitors but just out lasting them. When almost everyone has the same low margins, it means no one is smarter and more innovative than the other.
Having better knowledge than your competitor does not mean that one has to develop all technologies in house but it does mean that one has a better idea of what is important to develop and what is not.
The assumption that the companies with deep pockets have great knowledge is wrong. Many of their technologies are based on poor understanding of what is required and that results in costly and not necessarily effective technical approaches.
Getting valid knowledge comes from an effort by qualified people to try to advance the capabilities of their processes through innovation. They have to try and fail and learn. This is not in the culture of the printing industry but it should be.
By Howie Fenton on Jun 15, 2010
Clint,
I think you raise some interesting points but I have a different opinion about one, "No printer before has ever invested heavy capital (to my knowledge) in a basic heavy equipment arena...". Of course NDAs (non - disclosure agreements) prevents me from discussing chapter and verse on this subject, but suffice it to say that I have seen many large printers who have internal people, external fabricators, off shore programmers and other staff that take equipment and software and rebuild or modify it to either their unique specifications or to significantly enhance its performance.
That said it could be argued that this is not "investing heavy capital.." But I would say that these teams and the mechanical or software changes they made were fairly significant.
By Erik Nikkanen on Jun 15, 2010
Howie, I am glad to hear that. More of it should be done. There are opportunities.
By Lithoman on Jun 16, 2010
It's one thing to buy one of's and try each technology. The real proof that their strategy is succeeding is when they start buying a second or third of the same machine. There is a lot of cool technology out there but at the end of the day it all boils down to the ability of the technology to make money for the buyer. Look at the traditional press manufacturers attempts to provide "digital solutions". How many people bought more than one Karat?
By Jerry Porter on Jun 16, 2010
Well said.
There is not enough equipment/process innovation inside printing companies. As noted in another comment, most all printing companies focus their innovation efforts on software for product and service delivery and fulfillment. Which is essentially vertical integration.. not innovation.
By Henry Freedman on Jun 17, 2010
Can anyone comment on the image quality and cost of RRD's IJ press technology?
By DJ on Jun 19, 2010
If you consider that once RRD has perfected inkjet printing with its own technology, and thus does not have to pay royalty fees for ink, then I suspect the business case looks very good.
Biggish companies like RRD can afford to develop ten or even 20 year business plans.
By Martin on Jun 24, 2010
This feels like the Kindle vs iPad discussions that are going on in the print blogs.
The technology was not there so Amazon went out and created it. Then industry specialist Apple put R&D and time into their expertise area and developed something that can do more then the earlier built Amazon solution.
I don't see how RRD can do nothing but fall behind companies like Kodak, HP, Screen, Xerox, Impika, and others that are building solutions in areas they are experts in.
One might say they are saving money on ink building it themselves but if you get ink pricing from these companies with off the shelf solutions the cost is nothing like proofing inkjet at $1500 a liter. It's a lot closer to say 10 times less. And all that trial and error is not free. With the largest printing companies behind RRD being the ones buying the million dollar inkjet presses they each will be sharing a portion of paying for the R&D development while RRD and their customers have to pay 100%.
RRD probably would have been better developing software for the iPad like Quad has done, then building machines they can now buy today.
By TOM on Jun 29, 2010
Clint
For some reason RRD has always had a fascination with inventing their own approach even when off-the-shelf was less costly.
Remember when Apple and Adobe began desktop publishing and RRD kept developing their own system until the bitter end and customers forced them into Adobe/Apple technology.
So I suspect your fascinating queries will remain unanswered.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free