Relates to the concept that you optimize for what you measure. Not factoring in that screwing over customers will have some impact down the line is also like some sort of debt (as in tech debt). It's like long term brand debt.
Really that part of HP still exists at that level of quality, but they spun it off as Agilent and later Keysight. Hard to believe they squandered the original brand so completely, though.
It is actually amazing that printers (inkjet, laserjet or the various 3D ones) work as well as they do; there is a ton of really advanced technology under the hood there working at micro- if not nano-scales.
5 years later I was in the grocery store and by the checkout register there was a stack of boxes on sale: Apollo Inkjet Printers. So that's what they did with that brand name.
What people are complaining about is the bottom of the barrel consumer products hawked out of very storefront the world over.
I have seen similar sentiments aimed towards Acer, yet i have seen Acer business market laptops survive for ages.
Basically companies like HP and Acer have multiple product ranges with different QA protocols and different margins. Yet people keep buying the cheapest consumer offerings and expect something mil-spec.
Yes. It still surprises me that most people I know - personally or otherwise - didn't figure it out yet: the lower bound on price for a consumer good is "just barely functional enough so that you can't sue the vendor for false advertising". And it's not that people expect milspec hardware. They just expect it to work decently, for a while. But those expectations are still too high.
- BMW, Lexus
Tech companies just think that they are immune to the market forces that keep other high end brands from skimming off the lower rungs (or at least doing it with their marquee brand).
The examples are just the first ones from different markets that came to mind.
Oh, BMW certainly has had its fair share of lemons and... unconventional cars, as well as involvement in shady dealings.
The difference to other carmakers (e.g. VW!) is that their overall quality both in build and in service is extremely high and that, while BMW was involved in shady stuff, they didn't get remotely as low as VW did with gassing apes with diesel fumes...
Luxury watches sold by rollex only have to do a few things very well, and look nice. Some major tech companies are constantly under pressure to not only maintain quality of existing features, but to develop new features to stay competitive (all of this on updated hardware).
Im not defending any 'bad' products that major tech companies put out, but i dont think the companies you listed are very comparable.
Perhaps the examples of BMW and Lexus, which were provided by the previous poster, would be a better comparison than Rolex for you? Car companies like those two, which focus their (multiple) brands for different levels of the market rather than diversifying the levels of the market covered by their brand, are a great example of keeping people thinking that one brand is "only for X type of buyer" while maintaining a presence across all corners of the market.
Perhaps there are better examples?
It's also possible that they are very aware of it, but just don't care. The modern corporate system, especially in the US, is set up to incentivize favoring short term results over the long term.
If it will make their numbers look better this quarter at the cost of damaging the brand down the road, unfortunately many company will choose that path, even knowingly.
Just as it's far less common for the regular working (wo)man to stay at the same company for decades, it's less common for CEOs to do so as well.
If a CEO/president expects (through loyalty/control of the board, or otherwise) to be at the company for a long time, they will naturally make long(er) term decisions.
I've always associated HP with printers — the LaserJet line specifically. I still use them for just about everything. They've always struck me as well built and reliable. Pretty good network/web UI. I've used some of their large formats too and those have been pretty nice.
Maybe I'm alone, but I'd trust HP to make a decent 3D printer.
It's just... awful.
I’ve got HP LaserJets that are 10 or 15 years old and good as the day I bought them. The driver is built into most OSes.
Sure, but HP from 15 years ago is not HP from now.
To be fair: I cannot stand any kind of Windows touchpad. They all pale in comparison with Apple stuff.
It's not only the size (which makes many multitouch gestures possible) or the firmware quality (I have hit an unintended combo maybe four times on a Mac in two years, while it was a daily occurrence in the Windows world), but also the "feel". Apple trackpads use a glass surface, nearly at level with the case, while Windows laptops seem to only offer plastic at 1-2mm inset. In addition I manage to get every Windows laptop really really dirty and the touchpads stained, I have yet to achieve this goal with any part of a MacBook...
At least Samsung and Sony should have the competence in-house from their smartphone departments, so this should not be an issue with patents.
I see terrible, bloated drivers
There was a workaround, which was to massage the Vista drivers to get them to install on Win7. Sorry if the details are fuzzy; it's been several years.
I'm not overly anti-HP, but this did leave a very bad taste in my mouth for the company. I still print on an HP3600 at home and think it's a great home printer; would buy again.
Garbage company, garbage products, and garbage management.
Now, it seems pretty hard to find any good reviews on Youtube about it. Obviously their marketing material shows it printing fabulous vibrant prints, but the "3D printing professor" did a review of it, and he ran into a whole slew of issues. This is his success video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFxKxdGvV0w
Interesting stuff, but looks to be at the infancy stage.
That said, they do provide some interesting cost values which make it sound like this will probably be in the ballpark of low 6-figures:
>1. Based on internal and third-party testing for HP Jet Fusion 580 and 5403D Printers, printing time is a fraction of the time of the printing times of comparable plastic fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), and material jetting solutions from $20,000 USD to $120,000 USD on market as of June, 2017. Testing variables for the HP JetFusion 580 3D Printer: Part quantity: 1 full build chamber of parts from HP Jet Fusion 3D at 10% of packing density versus same number of parts on above-mentioned competitive devices; Part size: 30 cm3; Layer thickness: .08 mm/0.003 inches. Competitor testing variables are comparable.
>2. Based on internal testing and simulation, HP Jet Fusion 3D average printing time is up to 10 times faster than average printing time of comparable fused deposition modeling (FDM) and selective laser sintering (SLS) printer solutions from $100,000 USD to $300,000 USD on market as of April, 2016. Testing variables for the HP Jet Fusion 4210/4200/3200 Printing Solutions: Part quantity: 1 full build chamber of parts from HP Jet Fusion 3D at 20% of packing density versus same number of parts on above-mentioned competitive devices; Part size: 30 grams; Layer thickness: 0.08 mm/0.003 inches.
>3. Based on internal testing and public data, HP Jet Fusion 3D average printing cost per part is half the average cost of comparable FDM & SLS printer solutions from $100,000 USD to $300,000 USD on market as of April, 2016. Cost analysis based on: standard solution configuration price, supplies price, and maintenance costs recommended by manufacturer. Cost criteria: printing 1 build chamber per day/5 days per week over 1 year of 30-gram parts at 10% packing density using HP 3D High Reusability PA 12 material, and the powder reusability ratio recommended by manufacturer. Based on internal testing and public data, HP Jet Fusion 3D 4210 Printing Solution average printing cost-per-part is 65% lower versus the average cost of comparable FDM and SLS printer solutions from $100,000 USD to $300,000 USD on market as of April, 2016 and is 50% lower versus the average cost of comparable SLS printer solutions for $300,000 USD to $450,000 USD. Cost analysis based on: standard solution configuration price, supplies price, and maintenance costs recommended by manufacturer. Cost criteria: printing 1.4 full build chambers of parts per day/5 days per week over 1 year of 30-gram parts at 10% packing density on fast print mode using HP 3D High Reusability PA 12 material, and the powder reusability ratio recommended by manufacturer.
How do you find the mechanical properties of the parts? Do they vary print to print? Do they suffer from the same problems that cheaper 3D printed parts do - principally either very low strength across the layers (for FDM prints) or very soft materials (cured epoxy and most of the SLS prints I've dealt with).
The pieces were pretty damn durable. (I couldn't break them by hand). They used either Nylon or Glass Fiber reinforced Nylon.
Mechanically it should be very similar to SLS, but uses a deposition style more like SLA. So in theory it should besomewhere in between.
The material I've read and demo material prints I've seen so far back that up. Should be good for small run cosmetic and functional demo prototypes, but you want see it used for mechanical short run production parts.
Can't get into the details on evaluating part quality other than to say that I personally think MJF parts are awesome - completely different thing than FDM. Just considering look and feel, MJF part density and texture create the perception of quality.
They call it not just the "HP Jet Fusion 580 Color 3D Printer", but the "HP Jet Fusion 580 Color 3D Printing Solution"
When I myself would be the target audience, "3D printer" sells better than "3D printing solution" I think.
Do you know what the true target audience they are writing for is, and if it really genuinely is so that there are such audiences where adding words like "Solution" helps the sell? Can you please elaborate on that and give intuition why?
Same applies for some other such words, like adding "Technology" to something that is more like a specification, and of course "Enterprise".
/I kid! I kid!
They're selling to product design studios. HP aren't selling a 3D printer, they're selling a solution for making 3D prints. The word "solution" matters, because 3D printers have a reputation for being janky as hell. You'll pay a premium for the printer and the consumables, but the promise is that you won't have to dick about for days to get a decent print.
Like its alternate meaning, the word “solution” tends to water-down and muddy what is actually being sold.
Copy machines, insurance, databases, plastic food containers, consulting, shipping, etc...
Everything is a "solution" these days. Often to problems that don't exist.
I would love to be able to print things on one at the local copy/printing center, but I'm wondering if they have moved enough down into the price point to displace what the current SLA shops offer.
And while I've posted things to Thingaverse there is an interesting opportunity for a curated source of soft 'things' that you could order from a local service bureau. Shapeways is nice but it doesn't seem quite there yet.
Disclaimer: I worked at HP in the past.
and it is actually available (and works just fine in some specific application).
I think 3D printers will be a much smaller market than paper printers, because the number of things you need printed is much less than the number of pages we (used to) need printed.
And although this HP machine looks amazing at first sight, lets look at the specs: it does about three times the resolution of my 3D printer - and colour - for A THOUSAND times the price. (Anet A8 0.2mm resolution for $200; Jet Fusion 0.08mm resolution for $x00,000 according to comments below). OK, colour is cool, but you could employ an artist to hand-paint your creations for a tiny fraction of this cost.
I get that this is first to market, but I think they are missing an opportunity to price lower and build mindshare while they learn the lessons required to build the cash cow: a consumer machine that does twice the resolution for ten times the price.
And this needs to happen fast - Brother won't allow HP anywhere near the lead they got with laser printers last time around.
Photoluminescent materials visible under UV light
They could print that on the surface but then everyone could see it rather easily.
And of course, you will only be able to use HP filaments!
Depends on how much you believe that statement I suppose?
I've evaluated a few 3d printers and from what I recall the default mode is usually fairly high quality (read uses more material.)
We were about ready to pull the trigger on a competitors printer (~100k machine) but at the last minute figured out that the media would basically cost us the salary for a full time employee. Instead we're running a cheapo FDM machine for parts where quality isn't critical and outsourcing the highend stuff to shapeways (who are mentioned below.) Overall I've been really happy with this strategy.
I bought a brand new LaserJet M452dn for $212.
Those $340 refills will contain more than double the toner than the starter cartridges. The fact that the starter cartridges lasted you 4 years is more of a testament to how little you print. A refill probably would have lasted you 8+ years.
The M452dn came with "introductory cartridges" all rated at ~1200 pages. For the CP1525nw, the black 128A is rated at ~2000 pages and the colors are ~1300 pages.
The new printer was ~60% of the cost of a set of replacement cartridges and the starter cartridges are 60-92% capacity of the A cartridge replacements for the CP1525nw.
So yes it cost me less to replace the printer than it would have to replace all of the cartridges.
In reality it cost me a bit more. The CP1525nw actually started jamming on me constantly when the black got to about 1% and the colors at around 5%. The diagnostic codes indicated it was a problem with the ink so I stupidly bought a replacement black which cleared one error code but not the jam. I got a quote for a diagnostic and it was more than the cost of a new printer.
Last year I wanted to get another one for my office, but it turns out Dell got out of the printer business in 2016. Samsung sold their printer business to HP, so there’s now only really three companies making laser printers now: Brother, Xerox and HP.
So maybe in ten years every office will have one.
Reminds me of the infographic comparing the cost of HP's black ink to other liquids, the next most expensive shown (at half the price of the HP black ink) was human blood: https://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/ink-costs-more-th...
580's build volume: 190 x 332 x 248mm.
Prusa I3 MkIIs build volume: 250 x 210 x 200 mm.
15,643,840 cm3 vs 10,500,000 cm3
Mimaki is a pretty awesome company.. we have one of their fabric printers, the tx300p-1800.
I have two 3D printers in-house at my job (Projet 460 and 3500HD) which we use for day-to-day prototyping and we commonly go to outside companies for limited production runs.
Anyways, would be interesting to see this way of doing 3d printing find its way to the hobbyist market at some point.
We use HP jet fusion 3D printers to manufacture production parts at Jabil (see https://www.jabil.com/insights/blog-main/3d-printing-reality...) and MJF is quite different from other tech e.g. binder jetting, LOM, FDM, SLA, SLS, DMLS, EBM, CBAM, CLIP.
Differences include cost structures, speeds, material capabilities, resolution, etc.
I feel like the people who want full colour will be making pre-production sample prints for marketing purposes.
> delivering quality output, up to 10 times faster at half the cost
And, reading the fine print:
> Based on internal testing and public data, HP Jet Fusion 3D average printing cost per part is half the average cost of comparable FDM & SLS printer solutions from $100,000 USD to $300,000 USD on market as of April, 2016. Cost analysis based on: standard solution configuration price, supplies price, and maintenance costs recommended by manufacturer. Cost criteria: printing 1 build chamber per day/5 days per week over 1 year of 30-gram parts at 10% packing density using HP 3D High Reusability PA 12 material, and the powder reusability ratio recommended by manufacturer. Based on internal testing and public data, HP Jet Fusion 3D 4210 Printing Solution average printing cost-per-part is 65% lower versus the average cost of comparable FDM and SLS printer solutions from $100,000 USD to $300,000 USD on market as of April, 2016 and is 50% lower versus the average cost of comparable SLS printer solutions for $300,000 USD to $450,000 USD. Cost analysis based on: standard solution configuration price, supplies price, and maintenance costs recommended by manufacturer. Cost criteria: printing 1.4 full build chambers of parts per day/5 days per week over 1 year of 30-gram parts at 10% packing density on fast print mode using HP 3D High Reusability PA 12 material, and the powder reusability ratio recommended by manufacturer.
So, sounds like we're talking something on the order of 50-150k per year or so if you're planning to use this frequently. Definitely not a consumer-focused solution.
Powder + ink technology kind of a mix of polyjet and SLS?
HP is the cancer of modern printing - anyone who crossed paths with their “region locked” printers/cartridges - can attest to that statement.