29 Inch digital presses

[Jwids05]

Does anyone see a future for the 29 inch presses emerging onto the market, like the Indigo 10,000. Their level of flexibility and long run cost effectiveness are rather enticing. Could they be the future of digital printing or will they simply fill a niche role for specific customers? To me the future still seems somewhat challenging. What could help revive the industry?

 

[MailGuru]

MGI makes a 40" digital press - toner-based. But, like most digital printers, it will only auto-duplex the standard 13 x 19. Don't know much about the Indigo 10,000. Will it auto-duplex the full 29"?

 

[arossetti]

Seems to be the future of digital printing. B1 or B2 size sheets using liquid toner/ink. If you look at the new printers being released that is what you are seeing.

 

[MailGuru]

MGI makes a 40" digital press - toner-based. But, like most digital printers, it will only auto-duplex the standard 13 x 19. Don't know much about the Indigo 10,000. Will it auto-duplex the full 29"?

Correction. I saw their new DP Meteor at the Graphics of Americas show last week-end. It's ink-based, not toner-based.

 

[Jwids05]

The larger presses seem to be all the rage, especially when you look at the trade shows and future products coming to market. Is there anybody on the smaller side who might invest in a new press with flexible capabilities such as the Indigo 10,000 to replace more specialized/less flexible machines. It seems that if the technology takes off like they are predicting this might be the case, however, I wonder if price or other limiters might prevent investment until the digital market stabilizes. Thoughts?

 

[arossetti]

I think the life of the machine will have a large factor in these decisions. Using imaging heads as opposed to xerographic imaging should extend the useful life of these machines. From 5-8 years to maybe 10-15 which could offset the 1mil price tag on a lot of these boxes.

 

[MailGuru]

I think the life of the machine will have a large factor in these decisions. Using imaging heads as opposed to xerographic imaging should extend the useful life of these machines. From 5-8 years to maybe 10-15 which could offset the 1mil price tag on a lot of these boxes.

I agree, arossetti. However, my concern would be, as fast as the current technology is moving, do I really want a machine running 15-year old technology? Thoughts?

 

[arossetti]

I agree, arossetti. However, my concern would be, as fast as the current technology is moving, do I really want a machine running 15-year old technology? Thoughts?

I know you went to GOA, did you sit in on Frank Romano's seminar on "The new landscape for digital printers"? One thing that he noted is that the big iron companies are shooting themselves in the foot by adding a bunch of automation and electronics onto their presses. Making an offset press that use to have a life of 50+ years now become outdated as fast as the electronic components. So now you need to be a big printer to have the volumes to support the price tag for a inkjet/nano press's 8 year life. Which would probably mean more consolidation of the industry.

 

[MailGuru]

I know you went to GOA, did you sit in on Frank Romano's seminar on "The new landscape for digital printers"? One thing that he noted is that the big iron companies are shooting themselves in the foot by adding a bunch of automation and electronics onto their presses. Making an offset press that use to have a life of 50+ years now become outdated as fast as the electronic components. So now you need to be a big printer to have the volumes to support the price tag for a inkjet/nano press's 8 year life. Which would probably mean more consolidation of the industry.

No, we were slammed that week. Only had time to walk the exhibit floor on the last day. Would like to have sat in, though. I mean, the fact is, us "middle-volume-guys" are leasing printers in the mid range price space ($180k to $250k) every 5 years, or so (when the 60-month lease ends). That means we're spending $540k to $750k - per printer, every 15 years. We have 3 color printers, so, we're already spending $1.6 to $2.2 million over those 15 years. It sounds like a big number, but, when broken in to monthly lease payments it allows us to generate the revenue to cover it. So, I guess, under that scenario we could already afford one of those $1 mil printers, IF the technology stays sound for those 15 years, which, we already know that it won't.

 

[MailGuru]

That means we're spending $540k to $750k - per printer, every 15 years. We have 3 color printers, so, we're already spending $1.6 to $2.2 million over those 15 years.

However, by using this method, our mid-range production press technology is being refreshed every 5 years. If we went the other route, the same would not be so.

 

[Jwids05]

However, by using this method, our mid-range production press technology is being refreshed every 5 years. If we went the other route, the same would not be so.

I would agree. There is more risk from technology becoming obsolete than there is benefits to owning in the current market. Until new technology slows and market stabilizes there is a lot of risk buying a new machine and milking it for its entire life.

Some consolidation seems unavoidable in the future, however, I think that small and medium shops will still find a profitable place to thrive.

 

[arossetti]

I would agree. There is more risk from technology becoming obsolete than there is benefits to owning in the current market. Until new technology slows and market stabilizes there is a lot of risk buying a new machine and milking it for its entire life.

Some consolidation seems unavoidable in the future, however, I think that small and medium shops will still find a profitable place to thrive.

The one thing we are missing however is the CPP. The toner based printer costs 50k/yr for lease and lets say .02 per 8.5x11. If you are doing 5mil 8.5x11 equivalant prints per year your total annual cost would be $150,000. Lets say a nano press costs a million after interest/install/options etc. Lets assume you plan to own it for 10 years (I think this technology could have a 10 year shelf life before becoming outdated). Your annual cost for the machine to sit on your floor would be $100,000 over ten years. 5mil 8.5x11" clicks at .005 would be $25,000. Your annual cost would be $125,000 and you would only be looking at a ten year commitment to the technology. Plus you have a lot more room to grow volumes over a 100-150ppm press. If I'm hearing correctly a S10 press will be able to print 500 8.5x11"/min.

I think we are reaching the floor for the price per click on toner. I don't think these companies will be able to go much lower then .03/click (including large) in the next 10 years.

Landa has said that they would be interested in doing a click based system much like the Indigo but we don't know what that price point will be. I guessed at half a penny for 8.5x11 equivalent.

The S10 I believe will start at around $800k.

Oh and one last thing, what if a company can print in 1 shift what it had to do in 2 or 3 because of the increased speed of the b1 press?

 

[MailGuru]

All good points, arossetti. It's going to get complicated, that's for sure. Maybe now would be a good time to retire and open up that bed & breakfast I've been thinking about.............