Talk:Indigo Digital Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I've changed this back to Category:Printing from Category:Computer Printers as the description on the former reads "Articles in this category relate to industrial processes and technology for reproducing text and images, not to computer printers.". I know it uses a computer, but then very few presses don't these days, even litho ones. The Indigo is a printing press, not a computer printer. PubLife 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right.The HP Indigo is a press,not a computer printer. I can see why the layperson would be confused though,as it sounds like a computer printer. The only reason I know the difference is because my husband is a engineer for HP,on the Indigos.--70.149.138.224 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I removed this from the criticism section:

"With HP Indigo their technology is sold under a closed tied-sales network allowing them to lock in their customers under their full control. Unlike traditional printing press manufacturers, hp indigo controls all sales of their printing presses, the ink, consumables and servicing. This tied-sales control has put many companies out of business in the past and provides an un-level playing ground for hp indigo press owners in being fully competitive within their market."

Not because I don't think there's a point to be made here, but that's a bit strongly worded for Wikipedia, and also inaccurate - whilst most companies do, you don't have to take the tie-in deal on the consumables.

If anyone wants to redo it with a slightly more NPOV before I get a chance please do. PubLife (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the reason that "most companies do" take up the tie-in is because there would be some cost penalty imposed by HP selling the press that would make it even less attractive ? Let's face it, there is no open competition for the ink consumables which I would say actually makes the original comment valid, if a little strongly worded. There may be other, non-HP reasons that these businesses went down - without more information it is hard to judge.

It might have been better (and more informative) if the conclusion drawn was that ANY Company looking to tie in with an industrial digital press partner make absolutely sure they have a soundly established return on investment and business case, at whatever pricing agreement the press manufacturer offers. This is because the nature of these presses is that the toners / inks consumables are not "open source", and as a captive customer, you are to some extent at the mercy of the press (and ink) supplier. That said, HP et al. will not want people going to the wall - its bad publicity for them - so it is in their interest that the printers can run profitably. Equally, they are in absolute prime position to ensure they get full leverage of margin on their consumables products. Anyone who has visited HP's stand at a LabelExpo (I went to Brussels) in the last 2 years cannot fail to see the heavy push HP make on their cost benchmarking products / planning software. They make no secret of the fact this fulfills the joint purposes of (a) ensuring a press sale can make the purchaser money, and (b) ensure (a) happens at a more than healthy mark-up on consumables. This "pre-flighting" of the business plan is utterly essential, and I am sure, is a step HP took in the light of some business failures in the past.