# Epson



## jimc (Jan 31, 2007)

A short time ago I asked why a printer had not been made for sublimation, however there's a rumour that Epson are working on not only a dedicated printer but also subilimation ink.
Whether it's for large format or desk top, I don't know.
Apparently they are due for release about half way through next year.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

Maybe planning to go to market once Sawgrass' patent expires to avoid any legal shenanigans?
But, that said, I'll believe it when I see it, I doubt dye-sub is a big enough market for Epson to bother with a printer designed specifically just for dye sub, a dye-sub ink may be more likely, which they say can be used in a number of their printers.


----------



## jimc (Jan 31, 2007)

pisquee said:


> Maybe planning to go to market once Sawgrass' patent expires to avoid any legal shenanigans?
> But, that said, I'll believe it when I see it, I doubt dye-sub is a big enough market for Epson to bother with a printer designed specifically just for dye sub, a dye-sub ink may be more likely, which they say can be used in a number of their printers.


Maybe Epson could possibilly make adaptions to their existing printhead such as a coating to help prevent clogging.
Dont forget, Epson have only a percentage of the normal inkjet market but if they got the sublimation side correct then they could be dominant in this field.
Even if they only develped the sublimation ink and not a printer the ink could possibily be configured to be less of a problem in the existing Epsons.


----------



## kidder (Mar 7, 2006)

Agreed. 
I have a Epson now, would like dedicated sublimation inks for it.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

have heard the same thing from an individual I would consider very current with what is hoing on with dye syblimation and especially Epson. Lot of differnt ways to look at it and time will tell..


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

The problem I can forsee is that once Sawgrass' patent expires, the flood gates will be opened, and anyone can then make sublimation inks, meaning that there will be a lot more open competition in the market, and that will lead to undercutting, and very tight profit margins, unless Epson do something amazing/revolutionary, I can't see them making any money from it.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

Have Epson filed anything patent wise for sublimation inks/printers - I would guess if Epson are going to bring anything to market, they are going to want it to be a closed/protected market.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

The epson ringer already have a coating on the head. The issue with most clogs come from non use, drying of the excessive ink on bottom of print head. I have used 1 of my 1400 for 5 years without issue. But clean the bottom of the print head often. I think the main improvement would be bigger channels and nozzles but that would lower resolution. I can't wait till the Patent expires this will definitely open the market up. Unless epson comes up with some new technology for ink I doubt they will be able to patent the ink. Most likely they will have a stop aftermarket cartridges from being used in the printer as they keep trying with new models of inkjets.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

pisquee said:


> The problem I can forsee is that once Sawgrass' patent expires, the flood gates will be opened, and anyone can then make sublimation inks, meaning that there will be a lot more open competition in the market, and that will lead to undercutting, and very tight profit margins, unless Epson do something amazing/revolutionary, I can't see them making any money from it.


I can see this both ways. On one side the ink price will surely drop and the Sawgrass Cartel will have to scramble and explain their past 10+ years of price fixing and gouging. On the flip side dye sub is still not a technology that you can simply sell a printer and some cartridges in the mass market. From what little I have heard,if the rumors are true, the Espon dye sublimation solution will be sold through specific channels decicated to the market versus regular Epson mass distribution.

Personally I do not think the patents expiring will have any significant effect on the dye sub market as a whole. Maybe a early bump as the entry level cost will drop but there are a couple factors that are much more important than ink cost. First, substrates will still be expensive. Even with the price of ink dropping we would not be able to really compete with screeners on larger project who buy cotton t-shirts for next to nothing. Second and most important, regardless of ink cost you still have to know how to sell and market what you make. People that fail in this industry do not typically fail because of the price of ink - they fail becasuse they have no clue how to find a niche market and sell to a market. That will NEVER change.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

sben763 said:


> The epson ringer already have a coating on the head. The issue with most clogs come from non use, drying of the excessive ink on bottom of print head. I have used 1 of my 1400 for 5 years without issue. But clean the bottom of the print head often. I think the main improvement would be bigger channels and nozzles but that would lower resolution. I can't wait till the Patent expires this will definitely open the market up. Unless epson comes up with some new technology for ink I doubt they will be able to patent the ink. *Most likely they will have a stop aftermarket cartridges from being used in the printer as they keep trying with new models of inkjets*.


Seems like the most likely scenario. 

Their business model is on the inks, if they can lock out 3rd party inks with a technology lock they don't need a patent.

While it might be a good thing if Epson can improve the performance thru printer and ink inovation I doubt that Epson will be selling this ink cheap. If you buy for the desktop from SG in bulk then the cost per print is about maybe 25% higher with SG inks than Epson _pigments_, so I don't see Epson selling their sub inks cheaper than their OEM pigment inks. Sub inks on large format are considerably cheaper _now_ than Epson OEM pigment inks are.

Since sublimators have for years been using 3rd party inks in the printer anyway ... then Epson I would think would be savvy enough to know they would _have to_ lock us out, otherwise when the patent is done then they would be knowing that sublimators would be most likely to want to "go around them" with very cheap inks, and we are very capable of doing that unless they can lock us out. 

Once the floodgates open then you are looking at sub inks that are maybe 1/4 or 1/5 the price of Epson OEM pigment inks on the desktop, already cheaper on wide format, so where would Epson make any money? Doubt they try and cost compete against Asian inks, the only answer is "lock out" in the carts..

So your point makes perfect sense.


----------



## danielschelin (Apr 1, 2011)

As far as price is concerned, Epson would still have to compete and I expect their price to be close to what their solvent inks are priced at but it would not surprise me if they came in a bit cheaper either. They don't have much room for gouging. They have to consider that most printer manufacturers came into the sublimation scene well after inks had a place in their equipment. Look at Mutoh (who still doesn't offer their own sublimation inks but has endorsed several), Roland, who uses Manoukian (not very good compared to newer brands), and Mimaki, who developed their own, but sells at a lower price than most aftermarket inks (works well but they seem to develop a new formulation every year or two). The prices of these inks are very competitive to aftermarket inks. The difference is that the manufacturer has cut the dealers margin and much of the support is being absorbed by the dealer by doing so. Even when the sawgrass patent expires, I don't see prices falling as much as some would believe. I would be surprised if it even fell at all. Sure, there will be companies from Asia offering inks well below market value, but that is the case with solvent inks as well. What you will find out, as have many of the companies that attempt to buy solvent inks from Asia, is that you do get what you pay for. I am constantly servicing companies that have chosen poor aftermarket inks.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

danielschelin said:


> As far as price is concerned, Epson would still have to compete and I expect their price to be close to what their solvent inks are priced at but it would not surprise me if they came in a bit cheaper either. They don't have much room for gouging. They have to consider that most printer manufacturers came into the sublimation scene well after inks had a place in their equipment. Look at Mutoh (who still doesn't offer their own sublimation inks but has endorsed several), Roland, who uses Manoukian (not very good compared to newer brands), and Mimaki, who developed their own, but sells at a lower price than most aftermarket inks (works well but they seem to develop a new formulation every year or two). The prices of these inks are very competitive to aftermarket inks. The difference is that the manufacturer has cut the dealers margin and much of the support is being absorbed by the dealer by doing so. Even when the sawgrass patent expires, I don't see prices falling as much as some would believe. I would be surprised if it even fell at all. Sure, there will be companies from Asia offering inks well below market value, but that is the case with solvent inks as well. What you will find out, as have many of the companies that attempt to buy solvent inks from Asia, is that you do get what you pay for. I am constantly servicing companies that have chosen poor aftermarket inks.


I see desktop sublimation inks prices falling considerably post 9/2014. Larger format is a different story though, the inks are not going into "disposable" printers. I would doubt Epson would be interested in desktop sublimation.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> I would doubt Epson would be interested in desktop sublimation.


I agree. And even if they get into that market, it'll only be with sealed cartridges where they can have better microbial control. These are not likely to be inexpensive.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

GordonM said:


> I agree. And even if they get into that market, it'll only be with sealed cartridges where they can have better microbial control. These are not likely to be inexpensive.


Wide format Epson printers are this way now. I would guess the chip resetter will be available the day the printer is available. 

It will just be the same old issue of voiding inking delivery parts warranty if you use non Epson ink.


----------



## JYA (Jun 2, 2008)

http://www.largeformatreview.com/la...-new-surecolor-printers-sc-f6000-and-sc-f7000

Sent from my DROID RAZR using T-Shirt Forums


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

JYA said:


> Epson enters dye sublimation market with two new SureColor printers - SC-F6000 and SC-F7000
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using T-Shirt Forums


I have a woody! RJ900 for sale!


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> I have a woody! RJ900 for sale!


 Epson enters dye-sub market with SC-F series launch


"The 1,118mm-wide SC-F6000 and the 1,626mm-wide SC-F7000 were unveiled in China this week with a provisional commercial launch date set for *March 2013"*

"Both printers offer high quality output at up to 720x1,440dpi, at speeds from 16 to 57sqm/hr, depending on application, and feature an *integral 1.5 litre ink system*."

"We saw that a lot of customers were buying our printers designed for aqueous graphic printing and using sublimation ink," he said. "So we looked at the issues in the market and *decided to develop our own ink and tailor the printheads [for dye sub printing]."*


Price is yet to be confirmed, but Ferguson said the SC-F7000 would cost less than *£15,000*.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

From my uderstanding they have patents on the cartridge technology thus will be able to shut out third party ink. 1.5 liter cartridges are way too cool though, Curious as to what will be differnt about things such as the printhead, if any. 

In this market it all comes down to the cost of ink and printer maintenance cost. 

If the ink is competitive it could be a home run -


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

They are coming into an established market (even if relatively small) where people are used to doing things a certain way including paying a certain price for their inks. I can't see them getting a good entry into the market if they price their ink at much more than the current accepted/expected price of bulk professional sublimation ink - even with the convenience of it coming in a nice big cart (as opposed to the potential messiness of refilling carts, or bulk feed systems)


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

They will get a lot more sales, if their inks are competitively priced, and available in bulk bottles, as people are likely going to want to use Epson ink in Epson's printers, even if not their specific sublimation printers.

Be interesting to see if they follow with small format/domestic sized sublimation printers once Sawgrass' patent expires.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

pisquee said:


> They will get a lot more sales, if their inks are competitively priced, and available in bulk bottles, as people are likely going to want to use Epson ink in Epson's printers, even if not their specific sublimation printers.
> 
> Be interesting to see if they follow with small format/domestic sized sublimation printers once Sawgrass' patent expires.


The cartridges are bulk bottles, 1.5L. If they are truly putting patents on the cartridge technology they are shutting out other inks which is fine if the ink is competitive. The whole idea of not having these never ending discussion with printer manufactures and the people who distribute them over what ink is being used and voiding warranties would be a welcomed relief. 

Interesting thought on the desktop market - imagine embedding in firmware or simply providing a disk with the ICC profile for an Epson solution? Seems like it would not be that hard to have a simple consumer solution. Maybe not to the point of mass distribution but surely making the whole process very simple and the ability for a consumer to have a choice.

A true dye sub desktop printer with cost effective ink has to have some folks at Sawgrass plotting their next move.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> They will get a lot more sales, if their inks are competitively priced, and available in bulk bottles, as people are likely going to want to use Epson ink in Epson's printers, even if not their specific sublimation printers.
> 
> Be interesting to see if they follow with small format/domestic sized sublimation printers once Sawgrass' patent expires.


According to the article they plan large format in March 2013, _the SG patent is not limited to desktop printers ... that is a misconception_. If Epson delivers the printer prior to 9-2014 with their own inks large or small format, and no SG license, then that would be interesting.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

mgparrish said:


> According to the article they plan large format in March 2013, _the SG patent is not limited to desktop printers ... that is a misconception_. If Epson delivers the printer prior to 9-2014 with their own inks large or small format, and no SG license, then that would be interesting.


Wide format users understand name brand inked is licensed by Sawgrass but this whole thing opens up so many interesting questions. Is Epson making changes to the printhead etc that may skirt the patents/licensing issues? If the patents/licensing are flimsy as many have said surely Epson could spin Sawgrass into a tizzy with their financial resources in court. 

If Sawgrass wanted to block Epsons move for the short term why would they even provide a license to Epson or do they have to as part of the past settlement?

This will surely bring an answer to the question of whether Sawgrass truly has an airtight lock on the patent question. Epson has more lawyers on staff than Sawgrass has employees. There is no way they pay Sawgrass a dime if they do not feel the patents will hold up. 

If the new technology does not infringe there is no reason for Epson not to have a desktop version out next year as well. The gates of hell are about to be opened on Sawgrass. 

Being an Epson fan I could not be more pleased.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

It's quite close to the end of the patent, so Epson would have to weight up the quickest/cheapest/easiest option to market, along with whether they think Sawgrass would want to try and persue Epson through the courts (this depends on how good Sawgrass know their patent is in reality, and how good Epson know it is.)
If Epson think Sawgrass would try and sue them, then Epson have to think whether the best option is to pay the Sawgrass 'license' for the remaining months of the license, or risk a legal battle.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

pisquee said:


> It's quite close to the end of the patent, so Epson would have to weight up the quickest/cheapest/easiest option to market, along with whether they think Sawgrass would want to try and persue Epson through the courts (this depends on how good Sawgrass know their patent is in reality, and how good Epson know it is.)
> If Epson think Sawgrass would try and sue them, then Epson have to think whether the best option is to pay the Sawgrass 'license' for the remaining months of the license, or risk a legal battle.


That is why this is so interesting - does Epson have a head that has nothing to do with the patent? Do they care less about the patent due to their size and resources? Has a deal been struck - Epson stays out of desktop till patents expire in exchange for no legal confrontation? The possibilities are endless.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> Wide format users understand name brand inked is licensed by Sawgrass but this whole thing opens up so many interesting questions. Is Epson making changes to the printhead etc that may skirt the patents/licensing issues? If the patents/licensing are flimsy as many have said surely Epson could spin Sawgrass into a tizzy with their financial resources in court.
> 
> If Sawgrass wanted to block Epsons move for the short term why would they even provide a license to Epson or do they have to as part of the past settlement?
> 
> ...


I see a Sawgrass going away party coming soon. I marked up above.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> It's quite close to the end of the patent, so Epson would have to weight up the quickest/cheapest/easiest option to market, along with whether they think Sawgrass would want to try and persue Epson through the courts (this depends on how good Sawgrass know their patent is in reality, and how good Epson know it is.)
> If Epson think Sawgrass would try and sue them, then Epson have to think whether the best option is to pay the Sawgrass 'license' for the remaining months of the license, or risk a legal battle.


100% agree. But I would still love to see Epson vaporize Sawgrass.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Riderz Ready said:


> That is why this is so interesting - does Epson have a head that has nothing to do with the patent? Do they care less about the patent due to their size and resources? Has a deal been struck - *Epson stays out of desktop till patents expire* *in exchange for no legal confrontation*? The possibilities are endless.


The patent is for the inks formulation, not the printheads, I would assume the same inks could go into either printer sizes, both are piezos. The larger format printer proposed has larger diameter nozzles .. but they could make a bigger "dot" in the small format printers as well. The head improvement only would mean less clogging potentially. Larger diameter nozzels plus smaller particle inks should be the winning ticket. The original 980s some of us used 'back in the day" only printed something like 300 dpi and those were more reliable in terms of not clogging.

I would assume Epson is more interested in ink volume (fabrics) and for fabrics the larger nozzles and lower dpi doesn't matter as much as it does on tiles or coffee cups.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

I would obviously love that too! 
It is going to be interesting to see, if Epson's ink is available in standard bottle form (not just their massive carts) at a similar price to current wide format bulk inks, how is anyone going to explain to someone with a small format Epson printer why they can't use Epson sublimation ink in it because of some 'random' company called Sawgrass.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> I would obviously love that too!
> It is going to be interesting to see, if Epson's ink is available in standard bottle form (not just their massive carts) at a similar price to current wide format bulk inks, how is anyone going to explain to someone with a small format Epson printer why they can't use Epson sublimation ink in it because of some 'random' company called Sawgrass.


Very good point. I would assume one could get those and pour into the desktop printer they have. The only downside is that a 1.5 liters x 4 is a lot of inks for a desktop user ... but then that leaves open re-bottling possibilites.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

Do they need to make the nozzles bigger, or just use one of their old designs of print head which didn't have as small a nozzle as the current ones do - or a hybrid of one of their old heads, and a newer one.
It also depends on how small the particles are in their ink formulations.

I wonder if Epson will actually make their own ink, or just get a current sublimation ink manufacturer to make it for them, or just rebrand one...


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> Do they need to make the nozzles bigger, or just use one of their old designs of print head which didn't have as small a nozzle as the current ones do - or a hybrid of one of their old heads, and a newer one.
> It also depends on how small the particles are in their ink formulations.
> 
> I wonder if Epson will actually make their own ink, or just get a current sublimation ink manufacturer to make it for them, or just rebrand one...


Good question, the article mentioned the lower dpi but could be they already got something off the shelf. I'm not sure if Epson actually makes their own OEM inks either or if someone else does that for them.

Actually I can see the "new" technology" just being "old" technology really. The DPI race in early 2000's was counter productive to fabric sublimators for sure, great for photographers though.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

I seriously doubt Epson paid Sawgrass a dime, though being good business people, Epson most certainly negotiated with Sawgrass. It's far more likely there was a simple agreement of cooperation moving forward -- the equivalent of "let's do lunch real soon." Sawgrass needs Epson far more than the other way around. Though sublimation is a decent-sized market, even bigger is direct-to-fabric printing. Several of Sawgrass' latest patents are on these techniques, and assuredly Epson is planning bigger and better printers for this growing market as well.

Epson may indeed be planning a sublimation printer for the desktop, but it'll use sealed cartridges, like what their printers use today, and those are on par per milliletre with Sawgrass inks.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

pisquee said:


> Do they need to make the nozzles bigger, or just use one of their old designs of print head which didn't have as small a nozzle as the current ones do


There's no need for them to make the nozzles smaller, if you mean doing so will result in fewer clogs. The dye particles aren't want clogs heads; the bulk of it comes from a scum that naturally forms because of microbial growth in the inks. This scum builds up because the heads sit in the moist (and often warm) environment of the capping station.

Most sealed printer inks contain a biocide to reduce the growth. There's also less growth because the tanks and lines aren't exposed to light. (If you use a CISS you can help avoid this by covering the tanks and lines with black velvet. Just be sure to allow air flow to the filters. If you've ever wondered why Sawgrass' CISS components are black, this is why.)

Pigments and dye solids naturally sink to the bottom of the large tanks used in CISS systems, so this can also cause clogs. The Epson printers use cartridges, and in wide format we assume the machine receives heavier use so the cartridges are replaced more often.

A high-end printer can easily be built with magnetic stirrers for the cartridges. It's actually pretty cheap to do, and you just drop in the epoxy-coated pellet. My printers don't have this, but I accomplish the same task using a Swedish hand vibrator (the kind you put on the back of your hand). The vibration stirs the inks perfectly. Do it about every other week.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

Interesting points and agree with most. Clearly Epson knows Sawgrass position and/or agreements have been made. Although Epsons internal legal staff has a cost associated to it it surely is nowhere near the cost it relation to company resources that Sawgrass would incurr. In short who is going to win playing "chicken" - Sawgrass or Epson? Considering how short the time is it makes more sense a deal is made for Epson to stay out of desktop with this solution until patents expire. 

I do not see the day where Epson sells bulk ink not sealed in a cartridge - makes no sense to enter the market unless they control the ink. If they have patents on the cartidge technology used they lock out everyone using third party ink which is fine and great if the ink is cost effective. I would guess they could get away with $200-$250 for a 1.5L cartridge which is a bit of a premuim from current pricing. A 1.5L cartridge is a dream come true if priced correct. 

Time will tell but if the ink comes in at the right price it will be a homerun.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> There's no need for them to make the nozzles *smaller*, if you mean doing so will result in fewer clogs. The dye particles aren't want clogs heads; the bulk of it comes from a scum that naturally forms because of microbial growth in the inks. This scum builds up because the heads sit in the moist (and often warm) environment of the capping station.
> 
> Most sealed printer inks contain a biocide to reduce the growth. There's also less growth because the tanks and lines aren't exposed to light. (If you use a CISS you can help avoid this by covering the tanks and lines with black velvet. Just be sure to allow air flow to the filters. If you've ever wondered why Sawgrass' CISS components are black, this is why.)
> 
> ...


I don't think he suggested to make the nozzles smaller, at least that is not how I read his post.

Between your Swedish hand vibrator and Riderz "Woody" seems there is a lot of excitment on this topic.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> I seriously doubt Epson paid Sawgrass a dime, though being good business people, Epson most certainly negotiated with Sawgrass. It's far more likely there was a simple agreement of cooperation moving forward -- the equivalent of "let's do lunch real soon." Sawgrass needs Epson far more than the other way around. Though sublimation is a decent-sized market, even bigger is direct-to-fabric printing. Several of Sawgrass' latest patents are on these techniques, and assuredly Epson is planning bigger and better printers for this growing market as well.
> 
> *Epson may indeed be planning a sublimation printer for the desktop, but it'll use sealed cartridges, like what their printers use today, and those are on par per milliletre with Sawgrass inks*.


Yes I agree, it would make no sense for them (Epson) to create a niche specialty ink and charge less than their OEM pigments, which are maybe only 25% cheaper than SG sublimation inks. 

I mean if the Epson OEM sublimation inks were cheaper than Epson OEM durabrites, then for those just using a basic desktop Epson for printing web pages and recipes or non graphic critical office printing then would be cheaper just to use the sublimation inks for regular paper printing. So I don't see any cost advantage Epson could offer to niche users when millions of regular users already are gouged on OEM inks.

I doubt if Epson offers anything on the desktop for $60 - $200 printers, and if they did it wouldn't be well accepted by desktop sublimation users unless the inks are _clearly_ superiour to anything else out there, or unless they could totally lock us out. Regular pigment printing is not great either using Epsons inks, it's just less problamatic than sublimation inks. 

So I don't see too much improvement Epson could offer on the desktop inks unless they re-designed the printer, which means the $60 - $200 printers sold to millions of regular users couldn't be built as cheap considering modifications used by a niche group. 

Mass production (millions of units produced) and the inks business model allows Epson to practically give away the printer. If only thousands of people needed a printer then they couldn't give them away so cheap.

But for a printer the cost of a car there is room for Epson to make any mods to improve it for sublimation then they make money on both the printer and the inks.


----------



## danielschelin (Apr 1, 2011)

Agreed, though a redesign of a current desktop wouldn't be necessary. They might change the firmware so that the firing frequencies are geared for their sublimation inks but they wouldn't have to design a new printer. If Epson got into the desktop sublimation market, which I don't see happening, then they would likely sell the ink for a similar price to their current desktop inks. People would still be up in arms about the inks costs, as they are in the desktop pigment market, but that is how they can justify giving away desktop printers at the price they cost. The truth is, if you're going into production and you're trying to keep your costs down, you need to go with a professional printer. You're not going to get that with a $200 desktop model.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

danielschelin said:


> Agreed, though a redesign of a current desktop wouldn't be necessary. They might change the firmware so that the firing frequencies are geared for their sublimation inks but they wouldn't have to design a new printer. If Epson got into the desktop sublimation market, which I don't see happening, then they would likely sell the ink for a similar price to their current desktop inks. People would still be up in arms about the inks costs, as they are in the desktop pigment market, but that is how they can justify giving away desktop printers at the price they cost. The truth is, if you're going into production and you're trying to keep your costs down, you need to go with a professional printer. You're not going to get that with a $200 desktop model.


Yes, I think that large format users are the only ones to gain from Epson being in the sublimation market, small format not really.

The thought about the warranty/service issue is big deal if you have an expensive large format. And having Epson stand behind the large format printer using their Epson branded sub inks makes a lot of sense. 

On a $200 disposible printer no big deal if you have to chuck it. Epson doesn't really ask questions on those anyway and you get a quick exchange if those are in warranty unless you were to volunteer that you put other inks it and that caused the problem.

If those new Epson LF printers work well with the Epson branded sub inks and the ink costs are OK, I see that as no brainer for LF sublimators.


----------



## sarimnadeem (Jan 11, 2010)

Hey
Are you guys using inktec with F6000 / F6070 ?

Or the OEMs?

If using third party inks, please let me know if you have managed to by-pass chip unit?

Thanks


----------

