8 Comments

• 

  David Schwittek

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Certainly the idea is interesting, but why does the manipulation software and interface have to be 'bundled' with the printer? It seems to me that this relatively light software could just as easily be an app on an iPad that then sends the print to a network printer of your choice - then one would not be tied to specific inks or printer tech, the manipulation could be done anywhere at any time, and the convenience of this product could be achieved at a fraction of the cost.
  
  In other words the real cache of this product is in the touch interface. As far as I'm concerned we only really need one touch ui is our lives that can connect to any number of applications and devices for output.

  !Report as spam
• 

  Jake

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  This could be a chance to give that Web OS a second life in HP printers!

  !Report as spam
• 

  Alex

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  I think its an interesting concept... although almost all of those gestures heavily infringe on apples patents...

  !Report as spam
• 

  John Kestner

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  While the execution of the idea is beautiful, I agree with the toast/toaster sentiment. But several of you are stuck in the present where you still use a computer. This _is_ a computer, one made for a single task, and we'll need devices like this when we're all using iPads. Assuming we'll need paper at all.
  
  Color e-ink, by the way, will be much less accurate than LCD displays for a while yet. Their contrast is pretty low so colors are washed out.

  !Report as spam
• 

  OlaP

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Appreciated your question, I think you raise good points. I'd like to add though, that to be honest, I don't remember the last time i strictly wanted to print images directly. Usually i still want to back them up on my computer, use them in future projects, and email them; i'm not sure where that fits in with this device. Also- I don't know if there's much demand anymore for printing "pictures" in general, unless they're worthy of framing and archiving (in which it should be extremely high quality + not limited by 8.5" x 11")
  
  It is a nice concept as it looks fun to use vs. the frustrating printer, but we're moving away from printing "pictures" like this. To sum it up: I'm not sure if its handy enough for professionals or could be priced low enough for its consumer niche.

  !Report as spam
• 

  GeorgeP

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  What professionals could use is an unlit full color e-ink based solution that can create a near perfect approximation of how the printed page will look BEFORE you print. Relying on RGB monitors to visualize our CMYK realities is frustrating. For example, pure RGB green cannot be printed with CMYK. By using CMYK e-ink, one could make final tweaks to color management without wasting paper or ink. Hell, it could even take 3 or 4 min. to render itself and it would still be a worthwhile invention. No need for video style refresh.

  !Report as spam
• 

  Darrell

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Like most consumer-level photo editing tools, which are extremely simplified when compared to the professional tools, this would be perfect for the home. Even as a professional, why do I want to go through all the time it takes to do simple tasks through uploading, copying, loading, manipulating, and printing when I can just use this robust device? I see your concerns as unfounded if we're talking about a consumer-level device and workflow.

  !Report as spam
• 

  carlito sway

  7 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  i agree (although i some how missed the "toast" euphemism in my schooling), it does raise a lot of questions - especially on the data tip. does it have an ethernet port? caint imagine ripping a gigabyte image via wifi to be very efficient... hrm...wonder if its faecesbook friendly... probly an app.

  !Report as spam