As it stages its re-entry into the digital print equipment market, Heidelberg is out to make high-end digital presses from other suppliers “irrelevant.” That, at least, is the word used and the conclusion reached by the UK trade publication PrintWeek in a recent report on Heidelberg’s emerging digital strategy, including some unusually pointed comments by a high-ranking Heidelberg executive.
According to PrintWeek’s Jo Francis, the company is preparing to announce a solution consisting not just of a digital press, but teaming that device with an Anicolor sheetfed litho press and a software controller for parceling jobs between the two. In the article, Stephan Plenz, the Heidelberg management board member responsible for equipment, calls this hybrid package the digital printing expedient that most printers really are looking for, as opposed to the high-performance platforms that HP, Kodak, Xerox, and others have been trying to sell them.
Plenz explains his assertion in an accompanying analysis by Francis of Heidelberg’s digital ambitions. Citing breakdowns of typical job mixes for Heidelberg customers, he claims that the Heidelberg Speedmaster SM 52 equipped with the Anicolor zoneless short inking unit breaks even with digital equipment between 250 and 500 sheets. Since few of these jobs involve variable data, says Plenz, Anicolor is the most economical printing method in that run length range. For jobs smaller than that, the 80-90 ppm digital press from an as-yet-unnamed partner would come into play, with the software—presumably a module of Heidelberg’s Prinect workflow architecture—deciding what job goes on which platform.
For Plenz, the implications for Indigos, iGens, et. al., are stark. “If 250 is the breakeven for the Anicolor, how many jobs really require the quality of that performance digital product?” he is quoted as saying. When printers learn the advantages of the Anicolor/digital package that Heidelberg will bring to market, “the argument for that performance digital segment disappears,” Plenz declares.
In the stories, Plenz makes other tart remarks about the costs of digital equipment and their track records in shops where they have been installed. The PrintWeek coverage is the subject of a thread at PrintPlanet, and the reader responses at the PrintWeek site are illuminating as well. (Also see the tangential but informative essay by John Roche on landfilled waste paper as an agent for keeping carbon locked up underground and out of the atmosphere.)
It’s intriguing, to say the least, to learn that Heidelberg’s second foray into digital printing (after the NexPress, now wholly owned by Heidelberg’s erstwhile developmental partner, Kodak) is to have a conventional press as its key driver. Debate about the wisdom and the practicality of bundling both technologies in one package is certain to intensify as the formal announcement—expected by the end of Heidelberg’s current fiscal year on March 31—draws near.
In the meantime, kudos to Ms. Francis and PrintWeek for shedding fresh light on the most closely watched of all breaking news stories from the vendor side.
Discussion
By Pat Berger on Feb 01, 2011
Heidelberg is blowing smoke. Heidelberg's premise is that print shop owners are ignorant and can't decide without intervention by Heidelberg on which output device produce the job. Why would a manufacturer demean a future customer before a sale.
By Pat Berger on Feb 01, 2011
Once Heidelberg's digital supplier is known what is to stop anybody from buying a similar machine. Another item is the digital dealer network already that has been in place for decades.
Whoever the digital manufacturer is will have to contend with disgruntled dealers and territories.
Unless Heidelberg can sell the machine and click charges for less than the competition where is the value that Heidelberg brings to the table.
By Rick Littrell on Feb 01, 2011
It feels like a desperation move by Heidelberg. It is true that a highly integrated hybrid workflow would be attached to most printers, I have a difficult time figuring out how Heidelberg will support and promote such a system. What about the existing installed base of Heidelberg offset presses? Will there be any upgrade path for them that does not include a forklift? Seems like it is too little, too late. If this is the best that they can come up with, life is going to continue to be difficult for them for the foreseeable future. Wish I could say otherwise, but I just don't see it.
By Erik Nikkanen on Feb 01, 2011
Sad situation. How does one get Heidelberg to move in the right direction? I don't know.
Many years ago, one of the top engineers at Heidelberg confirmed that a patent of mine would indeed decouple the ink and water relationship in an offset press. They agreed that it would result in consistent ink feed that was independent of water and other variables.
But would they move on this. No. It was too difficult for them to investigate anything unless it was a part of some kind of organized long term plan.
This kind of development would have been right down Heidelberg's alley but they do not have the imagination to take advantage of opportunities when they come up.
My emails with them will just become an interesting historical footnote of a potentially failed company that didn't know which way to turn on so many issues.
By Howie Fenton on Feb 01, 2011
I think the idea of hybrid printing and hybrid presses have merit, although my definition of hybrid press may be different then others. Without discussing any specific manufacturer or technology, it could be argued that offering two printing technologies on the same piece of equipment could provide significant benefits for both companies with installed equipment and those buying new equipment.
Personally, I think the benefits and opportunity are larger for the installed base. If you look at publishers who invest great sums in finishing equipment it makes all the sense in the world to retain that same plant footprint and equipment and add an addition output technology to an existing workflow. I just returned from meetings that talked about this subject and although the specifics are covered under a non disclosure agreement, I can say that the need was confirmed and that developments are underway.
A business case could be made for those considering new equipment too. Commercial printers often have different products they produce with different run lengths and requiring different needs for personalization. The advantage would be that one day you could be printing 55,000 K books with no need for personalization, another day 100,000 postcards with a small need for personalization and another day 300,000 transpromo statements with a greater need for personalization.
Having the capabilities to offer different run lengths and different levels of personalization simply by shifting finishing lines would significantly increase the utilization of that equipment, which is one of the most challenging goals in business these days.
For anyone interested here are two related stories on printers who added inkjet heads to their offset press:
http://printceo.com/2010/10/build-your-own-press/
and integrator’s who could add inkjet heads to existing offset presses:
http://printceo.com/2010/10/building-a-do-it-yourself-inkjet-press/
By Joe Schnore on Feb 01, 2011
I worked for Heidelberg during the Nexpress days. Back then all Heidelberg sales tried to do was squash Nexpress sales because they interfered with the "Big Iron" sales. It was the only thing that mattered. There was a demo piece created that showed the image quality similarities between a Nexpress and a Speedmaster 102. You have never seen the piece because sales management refused to allow it to be used. They were threatened by it instead of using it to show how the two machines could compliment each other in the press room. Now they state that quality does not matter for short runs? Have they done their research or talked with their customers. Quality is all I hear about. Heidelberg was never forward thinking, they have relied on their quality to carry them. The rest of the world has caught up on quality and they are left scrambling. I just realized I sound like a disgruntled employee, I’m really not. I see a market leader without vision now trying to lead the industry down a path that they could have owned if they would have stayed the course.
By Don Harvey on Feb 01, 2011
Underestimate Heidelberg at your own peril.
By Vern Kellie on Feb 01, 2011
As a former Heidelberg employee (having worked for Heidelberg, or it's incorporated companies, on different occasions over more than two decades); and having sold press technology at Heidelberg and the Nexpress, I would like to offer a different point of view from the comments previously posted by Joe Schnore.
First, when Mr. Schnore mentions that "back then all Heidelberg sales tried to do was squash sales because they interfered with big iron sales", in my view, is totally false. In fact, when Heidelberg introduced the Nexpress to its U.S. sales force most of the Nexpress sales force were new hires, (hired bc of their digital experience). Their introduction to Heidelbergs expansive customer base (where many Nexpress sales were made), was led by the existing "big iron" sales force who held long-standing relationships with the top executives of those companies. It's fair to say that many, many Nexpress sales would not have come to fruition without the leverage of "big iron" salespeople.
Second, Mr. Schnore suggests there was a "demo piece" showing the quality similarities between the Nexpress and SM102; and further inferred , that heidelberg sales management hampered Nexpress sales by not allowing the comparison to be shown. I know of no such piece ever produced. But if there were, I could only suggest: that a saavy sales manager, being fully aware that a Nexpress and 40" press address totally opposite ends of the market spectrum, and notwithstanding that a saavy buyer who understands press technology (and would probably ask for further samples to be produced, some of which the Nexpress would be technically incapable), that the sales manager would be acting in the best interests of the sales person by not allowing said samples to the shown, thus saving their credibility in the account.
Finally, Mr. Schnore suggests that Heidelberg is not a "forward-thinking" company. I could site countless evidence to the contrary, but one has to only peruse the plethora of patents in their purview to form their own judgement.
By Gareth Ward on Feb 02, 2011
May I shed some further light on this? I too have heard from Stefan Plenz (and Bernhard Schreier for that matter) about the plans to move back into digital printing. Heidelberg considers that there is almost no quality difference between digital and offset, at least none that a customer might complain about. Further the recent crop of light production digital presses offers the same quality as the flagship machines. He demonstrated this with samples. Why spend three to five times as much on a press offering the same quality with just 25% more output, runs the argument, especially as above that 250 sheets and Anicolor becomes competitive. Is this a reason why at GraphExpo Xerox and Kodak extended their sheet formats?
Yes, the action is defensive on Heidelberg's part and will help protect litho press sales and yes it is accepting the reality of digital printing. From a customer point of view there is still some uncertainty about digital print and its suitability for jobs that are produced, resulting in rash decisions to try to compete with the digital print upstarts. For those customers Heidelberg will offer reassurance and the support of a company that they have always done business with. There should be no concerns about colour matching across platforms, nor about integration with the preproduction area.
There will not be a hybrid press. Adding inkjet heads is possible only on a web fed press and Heidelberg (outside of gallus) is not in that business. On a sheetfed press the paper is not under sufficient control - look at the systems Fuji has employed on its J720 machine - for inkjet.
Will Heidelberg succeed? That depends on matching delivery with the promises, with incentivising its sales force to sell digital presses properly, and having back up and response times in place to cope with the call outs that digital demands.
I'm sure that Andy Tribute will second these thoughts once his self imposed purdah ends.
My take on the strategy is at http://bit.ly/hqmMQM
By Dennis Beck on Feb 02, 2011
I believe, at least at this moment, that it is premature to judge Heidelbergs' newbe. Having said that it is difficult to see how the SM52 will be more efficient then a Presstek digital press vs. a toner based unit by Xerox or the like(switching between those two units as quantity demands). One issue that all press mfg. have to deal with is that toner/liquid based units are getting closer and closer to matching litho in quality. It is just a matter of time, and not too much time either, that you will find these units being able to print 4 up. 8.5 x 11. I won't even mention the new inkjet units by Fuji etc.,that are on the cutting edge of technological printing techniques. What Heidelberg has done is similar to the Toyota Prius. Toyota has combined gas with electric. Yes, it is succseful. However, a total electric car is the way to go and GM and Nissan are moving in this direction. As soon as we figure out how make a better and longer lasting battery-gas will be a thing of the past. Gas won't go away it will just a very small player. That is what will happen with litho-won't go away-jus a very small player. Heidelberg is a great company and will be around for many years. I just don't think they will be a big player in the print market. They just will be doing what they do best-run on gas.
By Gérard Rich on Feb 02, 2011
The arrogance of heavy metal suppliers likely mirrors that of digital printing machine suppliers.
The key piece of this debate is the cost of a copy for an order of 250 copies placed by a customer.
By Pat Berger on Feb 02, 2011
Digital 8.5 x 11 printed 2 sides including click charges machine lease (100,000 copies / month),energy cost and 70# paper about $.10 each based on 2up production. 250 copes about $25.00. 500 copies $50.00 This does not include an operator.
Can someone contribute the 52cm anicolor cost of production?
By John Henry on Feb 02, 2011
Pat has hit it on the nose, cost per copy is king in whole thing. You will hear value added for press quailty blah blah.
Mjor issue is press operator vs digital operator. I can find plenty of good workers to hit print. I cannot say that about pressman, my youngest is 48 and no 25 year old's I see are looking to run a press.
Last my predition is KM is the partner with thier new 8000.
By Scott Cappel on Feb 04, 2011
It's very difficult to speculate about Heidelberg's strategy in the here and now without seeing what they will actually offer. But whatever they eventually bring to the marketplace, if it's not enough to once again differentiate their brand, they will indeed have a tough path ahead.
By Noel Ward on Feb 04, 2011
A day late and a dollar short. At least.
Heidelberg's digital ambitions seem more like a catch-up game reflecting the company's recognition that they were wrong to get out of digital when they bailed on the NexPress deal with Kodak, despite the limitations of that device at the time.
In my opinion, a key issue is real-world demand. Just how many print providers are ready to pony up the cash for a device that seemingly fits a relatively narrow niche when other existing and installed devices offer more overall versatility? Sure, cost per page is important, but it's not the only factor. Time to ROI is a big one, along with the size of investment required.
A lot more details need to be revealed before anyone can say this Anicolor/digital/software solution has any legs. But color me very skeptical.
By Vytas Barsauskas on Feb 04, 2011
End of the day, Heidelberg knows that they will have the last word on this program. Either they performed their due diligence and have a business model that will give the market the solutions they require and the return Heidelberg expects or Heidelberg will fall behind the printing industry’s digital transition and their clients and shareholders will remind them of those decisions. Our industry needs progressive manufacturing leadership that will encourage R&D investments and hopefully Heidelberg can show the way.
By Buck Crowley on Feb 05, 2011
"Hybrid" is the usual baby-step path for new technolodgy.
The truth is inkjet is now at the speed, quality and cost per page of litho printing.
The printers that can afford it are converting to all digital upgrades to their presses now.
As has been said many times: "Keep the Iron, shut off the ink fountains, Turn on the Inkjet and use less skilled crews".
Buck @ BuckAutomation.com
By Gérard Rich on Feb 08, 2011
It is not because offset is a mature technology that it is not delivering value.
It is not because ink jet is heavily marketed and is (still relatively) young and sexy in the world of Wall Street analyst that it is cheaper and better.
I still would like to see a direct comparison of costs of offset and toner/Inkjet printing for 250 copies of a brochure (all included) assuming of course that the suppliers have state of art equipment in each case
By Vytas Barsauskas on Feb 10, 2011
Gerard, I agree totally. It is all about what is the more valuable technology option for the product required. We all know that ink jet and toner-based printing will have difficulty to be cost competitive with offset at the 1 Million-impression level. Have a conversation with printers as to how to cost a product with high toner coverage and talk to an ink jet press printer as to IJ coated commercial press paper and ink jet ink costs. There are dynamics in our industry that keep driving digital solutions. Each quality/cost print segment has different printing options available to deliver a product. The market eventually will dictate the optimal solution.
By Pat Berger on Feb 11, 2011
Gerard you couldn't be more correct. There are No press manufacturers that have the gonads to publicly touch the pricing on a single 1 or 2 page job at 250 or 500 quantities.
When gang run offset is still the most economical production method for many many products Vista print, 4 over, McGrew along with the other gang run manufacturers have been demonstrating this for close too a 100 years.
By Buck Crowley on Feb 11, 2011
I'm not sure if we are all talking about the same thing here.
The inkjet systems such as HP, Kodak and others, that many printers are adding to their web presses have a per page prices of less than $0.01 per page.
Inkjet's ink and printheads are fundamentally less expensive than offset ink and plates.
If you want real-world cost, click on my name above and email me.
Inkjet can easily be retrofited to any sheet or web press.
Buck @ BuckAutomation.com
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free