Why are wide printers so expensive?

[JSR]

[Ian]

Re: Why are wide printers so expensive?

Epson watch out, JSR is about

But seriously, I think you have a point, to a degree about the asking price for the 3800, though my focus is on the price disparity with the US price.

But in general, I think I can go some way to answering your questions.

The smaller printers are all aimed at much higher volume markets - some of these will be selling in hundreds of thousands worldwide, perhaps millions. Economy of scale helps, but so too does the marketing incentive to sell at a low or even negative margin and to recoup this through ink sales.

Look at your R1800, which is aimed at consumers rather than professionals. It's cheaper to buy than an R2400, which is exactly the same size. Even though the R2400 has, arguably, superior inks, the R1800 inks are substantially more expensive. The R2400 sells in smaller numbers than the R1800 - it's aimed at the specialist pro and semi-pro market, but Epson can bank on more ink sales per printer sold, so it can reduce the cost of the ink sales as.

I really think you are in a minority, if a significant one, in being so vehement about the loss of roll paper support on the R3800. Epson will argue that there are added running cost benefits from the R3800's larger ink tanks and reduced wastage from switching between the photo and matt black cartridges. I'm also told it is a more robust printer than the R2400, so it should withstand a high workload better.

Epson want people to regard the R3800 as a smaller, cheaper, R4800, not a big brother to the R2400 and that seems reasonable to me.

But, like you, I'm not happy with the big price differential with the US and this is something I won't ignore when I write about the R3800 in future.

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Why are wide printers so expensive?

Look at your R1800, which is aimed at consumers rather than professionals. It's cheaper to buy than an R2400, which is exactly the same size. Even though the R2400 has, arguably, superior inks, the R1800 inks are substantially more expensive. The R2400 sells in smaller numbers than the R1800 - it's aimed at the specialist pro and semi-pro market, but Epson can bank on more ink sales per printer sold, so it can reduce the cost of the ink sales as.

That reasoning doesn't really work. Although the inks for the R2400 are cheaper than the R1800, any saving is lost as soon as you have to switch between matte and photo blacks. I would be surprised if the cost-per-print from the R2400 was significantly different to the cost-per-print from the R1800.

If the R2400 sells less than the R1800 then it's only because the cheaper R1800 is capable of doing nearly everything the R2400 can do. With the exception of R2400's dedicated b&w ability and the thick media support, the R1800 is a much more sensible choice for the customer - particularly as it gives better glossy prints and doesn't suffer from the "swap the blacks" issue.

(Incidentally, I would argue against the R2400 having "superior" inks because I don't think it does. It just has an inkset better suited to black&white prints. Other than that, there's nothing superior about the R2400 inks.)

It makes me wonder sometimes why Epson released both the R1800 and the R2400. I'm glad they did, otherwise I wouldn't have enjoyed the R1800, but there seems to be no real reason why there are two printers here when one could have been released to accomodate both markets.

Incidentally, why is it that the R2400 has the oddball numbering system? The current pride of Epson's printers seem to be the 8xx series - A4 (R800), A3 (R1800), 17" (3800), 17" PRO (4800), 24" (7800), 44" (9800). Is there some significance to the fact that the R2400 was not called the R2800? Moreover, does the 3800 signal the future release of a cheaper 24" printer (5800) and cheaper 44" printer (8800)? There's got to be something behind this numbering system.

I really think you are in a minority, if a significant one, in being so vehement about the loss of roll paper support on the R3800.

Epson will argue that there are added running cost benefits from the R3800's larger ink tanks and reduced wastage from switching between the photo and matt black cartridges.

I'm also told it is a more robust printer than the R2400, so it should withstand a high workload better.

Epson want people to regard the R3800 as a smaller, cheaper, R4800, not a big brother to the R2400 and that seems reasonable to me.

In which case, what is the upgrade path from the R1800/2400? Are Epson really saying that they want potential 4800 customers to buy the cheaper 3800, when they should really be saying that they want potential R2400 customers to buy the more expensive 3800? They want to make less money out of high-end customers, not more money out of low-end customers? That doesn't make sense.

I would imagine that there are more customers owning the R1800 and R2400 than there are owning the 4800. Therefore, the market to tap would be those seeking to upgrade from the R1800/2400 - not those who already own a 4800.

But, like you, I'm not happy with the big price differential with the US and this is something I won't ignore when I write about the R3800 in future.

If the 3800 is primarily designed to be a smaller, cheaper 4800 then the logic is bewildering in another way. The US price of the 4800 is effectively the price that the 3800 will be sold for in the UK. If Epson feel that US customers are not buying the 4800 because it's too expensive, why on Earth do they think UK customers will pay the price of the 4800 for the 3800?

If the 3800 was offered in the UK for the same price as the US, I would be less picky about the corner cutting that Epson are doing. Effectively Epson are saying "pay more, do less".

In the US, the 3800 is a "no-brainer" as they call it. The price of the printer is less than here, the amount of supplied ink is much more than the R2400. No one would buy the R2400 in the US now (unless they really wanted that roll feed). The 3800 won't be enticing owners of the 4800 to buy again, but it will certainly be enticing R2400 owners/customers to buy it. Not so outside the US.