On 07/08/2010 21:18, Richard Steinfeld wrote:
What's the status of those cheap-ink printers that Kodak introduced not
that long ago?
Status? They are well made and reliable. The ink is cheap (in
comparison to other makes), the quality of the printing is excellent,
and the after sales service is also excellent. [snip]
For another view see here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352799,00.aspfor results of PC
Magazine's annual reader survey which says:
"Perhaps worse for Kodak, it's the first company to show a percentage of
products needing repairs higher than Xerox does. We've never exactly
been able to figure out why for years running Xerox has had double-digit
numbers in this category. Last year it was at 18 percent (and Kodak was
at 14 percent). However, this year Xerox's percentage needing repair
only went up to 22; Kodak more than doubled to 31 percent. That's almost
one in three Kodak printers needing a fix; a big problem for a company
that hasn't been in the printer business very long. On the other end of
the repair spectrum, if you want products that don't need many repairs,
go with Samsung or Epson."
On the other hand, they did receive the best ratings for cost of
consumables.
Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
Kodak did have a problem with the company that manufactured the print
heads for them. That has now been, apparently, rectified. Kodak
rectified the matter with the customers by sending them a new print head
free of charge (it is very simple to change the heads). When Epson
printers need fixing (after about a year), it costs so much that it is
cheaper to buy a new printer (from my own experience with six Epson
printers).
That is a big difference and shows what happens when figures are taken
out of context. I take it that Kodak don't advertise with pcmag. One
reason I don't read such magazines is poor reporting that favours the
companies that advertise with them.
