| |
| | |

Printer Forum   

 Forgot password?
 register
Search
View: 1221|Reply: 13

What has changed?

[Copy link]

Post time: 2013-4-12 20:44:44 |Show all posts
Looking at the accumulation of threads on this subject it points out that there is a very big split in how the industry thinks about the chemistry used in the offset.  Solvents against non solvents.  The solvents are the old technology the non solvents the new  even though they are over 20 years old.
  This industry better wake up and get their heads out of the sand if they want to survive.  It is not a matter of different cultures and methods.  It boils down to what are the most cost effective methods and how do we learn to implement them.
   This industry is totally hung up on old pressroom chemistry technology  and are chicken to implement any meaningful change because we have always done it a certain way.  Yet all we hear in this forums of all the problems they have and what can we do to fix it.
  The answer is simple CHANGE and forget about that is how we have always done it.
Change for the sake of change is ignorant. Change for the sake of profits and survival is wise.
   There are billions of dollars at stake. The Ink, chemical companies along with some press manufacturers and some industry associations know exactly what I am talking about and have been trying to kill this technology since the mid 1990's.  They are afraid of change and what it will do to this industry or should I say to their very survival.

Post time: 2013-4-13 14:55:00 |Show all posts
I feel more ignorant than usual at the moment.  Anyone mind filling me in as to what the subject of this thread is.  I think it is a new material, maybe process?
Thank you,
Cold

Post time: 2013-4-13 13:37:04 |Show all posts
HAHAHAHAHA, Sums it up perfectly!!!!!
Think of all the new technology that has been squashed or purchased and put in a vault never to see the light of day again simply due to multi national giants and their GRED.
It's great that there are some manufacturers in print pushing the boundaries & developing technology that will help the industry endure.
I liken the manufacturers that continue to wallow around in their old technology  the same as the people that thought you couldn't sail further then the horizon because you would go over the edge / You can't put man on the moon because ----
The sooner chemical manufacturers wake up and move forward and offer products that help the print manufacturers bottom line  the better.
Embrace change - never fear it…..

Post time: 2013-4-13 12:20:09 |Show all posts
Yup, Agreed……

best, gordo

Post time: 2013-4-13 10:58:30 |Show all posts
Gordon, good points.  But the same points can be made for the technology suppliers.  
Very few want to make their existing technologies obsolete by the introduction of new ones.
Only a few companies, like Apple, go out of their way to develop new products that make their existing money makers die an early death.  
Adopting new technologies early is one path but printers of a reasonable size have always had the opportunity to develop their own internal innovations but did not want to do it.  Of course this is due to their own lack of knowledge in their own processes.  
Valid knowledge is the key and it should be a goal of any operation to improve their valid knowledge of their process.  Valid knowledge being something that is specific enough that one can take action on and obtain predictable results.  Relentlessly improve the knowledge base and make invalid knowledge obsolete. Get rid of myths.  Don't allow them to poison your thinking.
Valid knowledge will help to reduce the risk of being an early adopter of outside technology or in developing internal innovation.  Not a guarantee of success but it gives one a better chance of success.  
If one does not want to gain the required level of knowledge, it is probably much safer to wait until others prove the technologies.  That is a valid strategy but anyone who is smart will not want to work in that environment if they have a choice.

Post time: 2013-4-13 09:25:07 |Show all posts
Having been a marketer that has tried to introduce new products/solutions to the print industry, I can add a few more barriers to the adoption of new technologies. Most printers do not understand their print process. If it's working reliably enough for their purposes then they resist making any change for fear that it will cause the process to fail - and they won't know how to fix it. The change may be the one domino that topples and brings down the rest. Hence the "why fix it if it ain't broke" mentality:
This applies even if the vendor demonstrates an ROI with implementation.
Most printers are not marketeers, nor do they buy printing themselves, as a result they view print differently than their customers. This often means that they do not see the opportunities provided by implementing new technologies or systems. So they do not pioneer the new. Instead they wait for market leaders to adopt, or wait until they are forced to adopt, or they simply stay ignorant and try and survive.
best, gordo

Post time: 2013-4-13 08:08:14 |Show all posts
People fear change, especially when they feel they are not going to make gains financially. (They are of the belief that why should they develop a product or technology that makes them less money but saves the user money) They also forget that the word "Sustainable" has multiple meanings and it won't be until the industry is completely broken that they wake up.
I know what your talking about.
I Have tested what your talking about, it works, it prints sharper then any other product that has gone on the press, it dried faster without IR, it had a higher gloss & used less ink to do it.
At one stage during the testing we had our state's head press mechanic/technical adviser in for another press and he came over for a chat, at this stage he began to look at the printed sheets with a 10x 30x 100x magnifying glass.
His comments were (That is printing exceptionally sharp and looks outstanding, what products are you using)
I fill him in and he is intrigued.
Meanwhile we couldn't continue the use of these products as it wasn't viable for the owner of the business to import them for our use.
But I have had other ink/chemical suppliers come in, some are head thechs for their company and when they see the name on some bottles, they ask about it and when I fill them in, they say "impossible can't work" At this stage I pull out all the press samples and show them, also showing printed samples that have been sent with the products. They then go quiet but soon try and defend their products.
I think it's funny whey these big manufacturers drop you in marketing folders and material to show the quality of print their products can produce. You compare it to the system I'm talking about in front of them and again silence..

Post time: 2013-4-13 06:27:49 |Show all posts
Like any evolving industry, there will always be those who are willing to adapt quickly and those who are reluctant to change. As it stands now, both technologies are still able to function within the industry properly, but there may be a time when the new methods emerge as the only option.
It is to be expected that in such a technical industry that the cost of conversion may scare a lot of people. It will come to a point where the old technology gets phased out, but for now, the split is not surprising.

Post time: 2013-4-13 05:13:52 |Show all posts
Maybe the problem is related to some people using one or more pseudonyms instead of using their real names to move thinking in a certain direction.
Using a pseudonym can seem to be a help when presenting new and controversial themes because it can hide some not so obvious motives.  But it also makes it harder for the general public to take seriously someone who will not back up their views with their real identity.  
I know who the Green Printer is and I know he has been very interested and committed to healthy chemical use in printing for a very long time but I also know he has a business interest in seeing it become successful.
Why has he not been more successful in getting is ideas accepted is something I do not know.  He may be quite right about his claims but that does not always translates into acceptance.   Things don't work out so logically in life.  On the other hand, maybe the Green Printer does not see things objectively.
I would think he would have a bit more impact if he would drop the pseudonyms when talking about real chemicals that are commercially available and explain why they are so good.  Nothing wrong with selling something that works.
Keep the pseudonym for the general fight to educate and make printing more environmentally acceptable and efficient.

Post time: 2013-4-13 04:07:19 |Show all posts
"The Ink, chemical companies along with some press manufacturers and some industry associations know exactly what I am talking about and have been trying to kill this technology since the mid 1990's."
I am an Ink manufacturer, and I have to be honest, I can't deduce what you are referring to here.
I do like change though, so If you'd care to elaborate, maybe it will find root with me.
Best,
Cold

Post time: 2013-4-13 02:55:05 |Show all posts
Well said, I agree...  When I was trying to sell alcohol replacement thirty years ago I ran into lots of institutionalized resistance.
I was (and still am) just trying to find out that was being referred to in this thread.  The sentiment is clear, but what it refers to is not.

Post time: 2013-4-13 01:01:11 |Show all posts
This comment is used all the time to try to show that some idea has probably no merit.  It is a faulty assumption.
All really innovative ideas are not understood by most people until well after successful commercialization.  
Even then, they might not understand exactly what it is doing differently but they see that it does, so they use it.
There are some classical steps in the progress on an innovative concept or idea.  A first there is just doubt that it is possible, then with some success there is an attack by those who have a vestige interest to keep things the way they were.  Later it becomes accepted as being an innovation and finally it becomes so accepted that most people say of course that should work and why would anyone doubt it.
Just human nature.  It is a problem of belief.  To move the innovation through the steps requires the breaking down of beliefs.  The resistance is not due to a conspiracy but more to do with ignorance and lack of imagination.
The Green Printer might have a valid issue but I know he also has argued in a similar ways against other innovative concepts.  Beliefs are hard to break.
The real problem with innovation is to get a second party to buy into the concept and have them see that they can make money with it.  So even if one has a valid concept, it will go no where unless one is successful at breaking through the very strong beliefs of the second party.
My view is that much of the credit for innovation should not just go to the innovator but to the second party that makes it possible for the innovation to be commercialized.

Post time: 2013-4-12 23:25:25 |Show all posts
"The Ink, chemical companies along with some press manufacturers and some industry associations know exactly what I am talking about and have been trying to kill this technology since the mid 1990's."
I, for one, have no idea what you are referring to (and I have been involved in and with several of these companies you allude to).  Is there some superior technology that is being suppressed?  If there was money to be made I am sure someone would be pursuing it.  If there was money to be saved, printers would be demanding it.  What are you talking about?

Post time: 2013-4-12 22:06:02 |Show all posts
You know I really don't see the problem with press chemistry, because it is not a whole lot of volume and does not generate a whole lot of waste streams, for mid size commercial we use 5 gal of A230 press wash a month, maybe 2 cubes of fount and 2 gal of sub, and a couple drums of AQ, and we have a rag service. So other then empty containers and empty ink cans we are hard pressed to fill up a half sized dumpster every two weeks, I call that a VERY small footprint for a company that employees 15 people...
You have to log in before you can reply Login | register

Advertise on OASQ.COM| Contact us| Archive| OASQ

2019-7-17 03:27 GMT-8

Powered by Discuz! 7.2

Release 20121101, © 2001-2019 OASQ.

To Top