INNOVATION AT DRUPA · drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the “second” drupa, beta sites and early placements are announced. Finally – most

INNOVATION AT DRUPA

ANALYSIS OF LAUNCHES AT DRUPA 2008, 2012, & 2016

MAY 2019

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa

P1 | © Keypoint Intelligence

Document

Objectives and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 2

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2

Deliverables .................................................................................................................................... 2

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Technology Demonstrations/Previews ...................................................................................... 4

New Product Introductions .......................................................................................................... 5

Product Line Extensions ................................................................................................................ 6

A Perspective on Technology Cycles ........................................................................................ 8

Buying Trends ...................................................................................................................................... 9

A perspective on buying cycles ................................................................................................. 9

Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research .................................................................................... 11

Data from InfoTrends’ application research ............................................................................ 12

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 13

Suggested Talk Track .................................................................................................................... 13

Tables

Table 1: Technology Demonstrations/Previews .............................................................................. 4

Table 2: New Product Introductions ................................................................................................. 5

Table 3: Product Line Extensions ........................................................................................................ 6

Figures

Figure 1: A Value-Driven Strategy ................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2: Service Expansion Needs ................................................................................................. 12

co

nte

nts

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Objectives

The primary objective of this research is to explore drupa from an innovation perspective.

The secondary objective is to determine the impact of delaying investment in platforms

that support innovation and evolution in the print market. Particularly of interest are the

total number of digital presses introduced in a specific drupa year, and what percentage

of these become available within a year, two years, three years, or longer. In addition, the

paper also factors in those devices which, despite being unveiled, never reached

commercial release. This research examines the impact on a print service provider (PSP)’s

business if they wait for longer term product launches.

Methodology

The research goal is to review product launches from drupa 2008, 2012, and 2016 to

identify how major innovations were announced and presented. The analysis includes

factors such as initiative size and whether the product was announced in partnership with

another organization.

The research tracks forward to see which announcements came to market and which

ones never launched, adding analysis of initial market perception at the time of the

announcements. With this, the paper frames any discrepancy between how a product

was presented at unveiling versus how it was received at commercial launch.

The research ranks the initiatives in terms of meeting expectations, analysing any gap

between expectations and reality. To ensure objectivity, this document includes factors

like market and economic changes that occurred within the outlined product time frame.

That said, vendor judgement and foresight is also considered – especially if market

analysists at the time were predicting challenges that the product developers overlooked.

The research also examines buying trends that impact HP indigo, regarding specialty

applications that cannot be done on inkjet.

Note: With a very few exceptions, this research does not include products that are

exclusively for wide format graphics or packaging applications. The focus is on products

intended for commercial print and document applications.

Deliverables

The deliverables are:

A report of the findings, analysis, and conclusions (this document)

A presentation of illustrations from the report (PowerPoint presentation)

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


These include suggestions for talk tracks and approaches for leveraging the data

outcomes included in presentation and report. Follow-up Q&A access to Keypoint

Intelligence – InfoTrends’ consultants is expected.

Analysis

Our examination of product announcements and technology demonstrations covers 18

vendors and 84 individual announcements. The PowerPoint presentation of the research

results goes through these on a company basis. This section summarizes that research in

tables that are sorted into three categories:

Technology demonstrations/previews

New product introductions

Product line extensions

Each announcement is given a ranking:

1 (Product launched on time)

2 (Product launched within a year of initial launch date)

3 (Product launched 1-3 years late)

4 (Product launched 3-5 years late)

5 (Product over 5 years late, but still expected to launch)

NL (Never launched)

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Technology Demonstrations/Previews

Twenty-three of the announcements are technology demonstrations/previews. From this

review, it is clear that vendors consistently failed to meet the timelines they discussed

during their technology demonstrations. In this category:

Five technology demonstrations never appeared as finished products

Seventeen were delayed by three years or more

Only one technology demonstration met its target launch date

Table 1: Technology Demonstrations/Previews

Vendor Product drupa

Year

Planned

Launch

Actual

Launch Ranking Comments

Canon/

Océ Infinistream 2012 2013 N/A NL

Project

cancelled

Canon Voyager 2016 2018 N/A 5

HP HP Inkjet Web

Press 2008 2009 2009 1 T Series (T300)

Impika Genesis

(Concept) 2012 2013 N/A NL

Replaced by

Rialto 900

Kodak UltraStream 2016 2018 N/A 5 Now planned

for 2019

Kodak

Nexpress Max

Platform

(Nexfinity)

2016 2017 2018 3 Renamed

Nexfinity

Kodak Stream

(Concept) 2008 2010 2012 3

Renamed

Prosper

Konica

Minolta KM-C 2016 2018 N/A 5

Konica

Minolta AccurioJet KM-1 2012 2013 2017 3

Landa Nanographic 2012 2013

2017 -

Beta

S10

4

Landa W10P 2016 2017 N/A 4

Landa S5 2012 2013 N/A 5

Landa S7 2012 2013 N/A 5

Landa S10 2012 2013 2017 4

Beta install

Graphica

Bezalel in

2017

Landa W5 2012 2013 N/A 5

Landa W10 2012 2013 2016 4

Landa W50 2012 2013 N/A 5

MGI Alphajet 2012 2013 TBD 5 Now planned

for 2019

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


RISO T1 2016 2017 TBD 5 Now planned

for 2019

RISO T2 2016 2017 2017 4

Xeikon Trillium One 2016 2017 N/A NL

Project

cancelled in

2017

Xeikon Trillium 2012 2013 N/A NL

Formerly

named

Quantum,

project later

cancelled

(see Trillium

One)

Xerox ConceptColor

220 2008 2009 N/A NL

Not

commercially

released

Specifying a timeline during technology demonstrations is unwise, as these dates are rarely

met. That being said, many technology demonstrations’ primary goal is to gauge

customer interest. If perspective clients are unresponsive, the system vendor simply steps

back from what would likely be an unsuccessful product launch

New Product Introductions

Thirteen of the surveyed announcements were new product introductions. Once a

company is fully prepared to release a product, there is a general expectation that

product availability will follow shortly—but this is not always the case. While eight products

launched as expected, five others met with challenges:

One product never launched

Four reached the market one to three years late

Table 2: New Product Introductions


Year

Planned

Launch

Actual


Delphax elan 2012 2012 2015 3

Fujifilm Jet Press 720 2008 2009 2011 3

Fujifilm/H

eidelberg Primefire 106 2016 2017 2018 3

Impika Compact 2012 2012 N/A 1 Replaced by

Trivor 2400

Impika eVolution 2012 2013 2015 3

Impika eXtreme 2012 2013 N/A NL

Xerox

acquisition in

2013, product

not released

Impika iPress 600 2008 2008 2008 1

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


InfoPrint 5000 2008 2007 2007 1

Kodak Versamark

VL2000 2008 2008 2008 1

Xeikon 8000 2008 2008 2008 1

Xerox Brenva HD 2016 2016 2016 1

Xerox Trivor 2400 2016 2016 2016 1

Replaces

Impika

Compact

Xerox CiPress 325 2012 2012 2012 1

Product Line Extensions

Forty-eight of the announcements were product line extensions. As would be expected,

product line extensions generally launched on time. Nevertheless, there were a few

noteworthy aberrations:

36 (75%) of these product line extensions launched on time

Ten were up to three years late

Two never launched

The results show that, even when dealing with a product line extension, one-out-of-four

projects will at least suffer delays. Perspective clients and hopeful customers have reason

to be skeptical of even these tradeshow announcements.

Table 3: Product Line Extensions


Year

Planned

Launch

Actual


Canon ColorStream

6000 2016 2016 2016 1

Canon imagePRESS

C8000VP 2016 2016 2016 1

Canon ColorStream

3200 2012 2013 2014 3

Canon ColorStream

3900 2012 2013 2014 3

Canon JetStream 4300 2012 2013 2013 1

Canon JetStream 4300

mono 2012 2012 2013 1

Canon imagePRESS

mono 2008 2008 2009 1

Fujifilm Jet Press 720S 2016 2016 2016 1

Replaces

plans for 720

F

Fujifilm Jet Press 720 F 2012 2013 N/A NL For folding

carton

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


market,

project later

cancelled in

favor of 720S

Fujifilm Jet Press 720 W 2012 2013 2013 1

RF variant of

Jet Press 720,

replaced by

the 540W

HP Indigo 50000 2016 2017 2017 2

HP Indigo 12000 2016 2016 2016 2

HP Indigo 10000 2012 2012 2012 1

HP T410 2012 2012 2012 1

HP Indigo 7000 2008 2008 2008 1

HP Indigo W7200 2008 2009 2009 1

HP Indigo WS6000 2008 2009 2009 1

Kodak Prosper 6000XL 2012 2012 2012 1

Kodak NexPress S3600 2008 2009 N/A NL

Not

launched,

replaced by

NexPress SE

platform

Kodak Digimaster EX300 2008 2009 2009 1

Konica

Minolta Pro 958 2016 2016 2016 1

Konica

Minolta Pro 1100 2016 2016 2016 1

Konica

Minolta C71cf 2016 2016 2016 1

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRESS

C1100 2012 2013 2014 3

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRESS

1052 2012 2012 2012 1

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRESS

1250 2012 2012 2012 1

Konica

Minolta bizhub PRO 951 2012 2012 2012 1

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRESS

2250P 2012 2014 2014 2

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRO

C5501 2008 2008 2007 1

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRO

C6501 2008 2008 2008 1

Konica

Minolta

bizhub PRO

C65hc 2008 2009 2009 2

Konica

Minolta bizhub PRO 1200 2008 2009 2009 1

Océ JetStream 750 2008 2008 2008 1

Océ JetStream 1100 2008 2008 2008 1

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Océ JetStream 1500 2008 2008 2008 1

Océ JetStream 2200 2008 2008 2008 1

Océ JetStream 3000 2008 2008 2008 1

Océ ColorStream

10000 2008 2008 2008 1

Océ VarioPrint 4120 2008 2008 2008 1

Ricoh PRO C900 2008 2008 2008 1

RISO ComColor GD 2016 2017 2017 1

Production

model of

ComColor

RISO ComColor FW 2016 2017 2017 1 Office model

of ComColor

Screen TruePress

Jet520NX 2016 2017 2018 3

Screen TruePress SX 2008 2009 2012 3

Screen TruePress

Jet520E 2008 2008 2008 1

Screen TruePress Jet520Z 2008 2008 2008 1

Xeikon 9600 2016 2016 2016 1

Xerox iGen 150 2012 2012 2012 2

A Perspective on Technology Cycles

It is our experience that a successful move from a technology demonstration to a

marketable high-end digital printing product is often a “three drupa” process. At the “first”

drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the “second”

drupa, beta sites and early placements are announced. Finally – most products are

commercially available, or at least at imminent launch, by their “third” drupa. Overall, this

marks an average eight-year development cycle.

To look at the numbers, of the twenty-three technology demonstrations at drupa 2008,

drupa 2012, and drupa 2016 - seventeen were delayed by three years or more. Five were

never commercially released at all.

Therefore, system vendors grossly underestimate the amount of time that it will take to get

a product to market. This optimism is misguided, and whether intentional or not, it may

delay purchasing decisions.

Press and analyst coverage of product announcements shows little skepticism about

planned release dates. Glowing reports in the news and early analyses are typical. Failures

are rarely highlighted. This could change somewhat as several high-profile launches have

been delayed by many years. Analysts and the press can no longer afford to be so naïve,

but they are not likely to be harsh until long after the fact, or until an organization

becomes guilty of several notable repeated delays.

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Buying Trends

In looking at the buying trends that impact HP, we explored three relevant areas:

A perspective on buying cycles

Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research

Data from InfoTrends’ application research

A perspective on buying cycles

It is clear from data that acquisitions costing more than $1 million are likely to be multi-year

buying decisions. In addition, vendors with no products are incentivized to delay their

prospects’ buying decisions with attractive technology and marketing efforts. In fact, early

announcements have the effect of “freezing” the market and delaying purchase

decisions. On top of this, buyers may be becoming more cautious about expensive capital

acquisitions due to earlier experiences, where they did not have the volume to fill those

devices.

Nevertheless, many organizations still make purchasing decisions with the technology

demo release date in mind. Given that this time table is frequently drawn out by years of

delays, this can lead to significant issues for the expectant client. While it is virtually

impossible to assign an exact dollar value to the damage caused by a missed deadline,

InfoTrends has identified six scenarios where PSPs could suffer as a result of a product

delay. Below are the outlined situations, as well as their resulting impacts.

Scenario 1: The company’s print volume continues to increase

o The volume increase will have to be handled on existing equipment with extra

shifts or perhaps via outsourcing.

o Existing equipment will be stressed by the extra volume and, as a result, its

service expense will increase.

o There are implications for the PSP’s sales force:

▪ If the new equipment is late, the sales force will need to overcome potential

customer delivery issues.

▪ If the sales organization hesitates, there will be an impact on anticipated new

revenue.

Scenario 2: Current equipment is coming off lease

o Delays may force the PSP to extend a lease at unfavorable terms or lock into a

lease that prevents new purchases.

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Scenario 3: Anticipated contractual volume over a period of years

o The delay creates financial issues, such as the need to outsource work to meet

previously set contractual obligations.

Scenario 4: Business expansion into new application areas

o Any product delays will hamper work that needs to be done to capture new

clients and push out business plans that were put into place to pay for the

equipment.

o It also delays the associated revenue and is likely to put a big dent into an

organization’s financial planning.

Scenario 5: Migration of work from offset presses to digital print

o This becomes problematic when the timing is off, especially as PSPs must

convince offset customers that the quality level of digital is comparable to

offset.

o It also creates problems when trying to energize the sales force to sell in new

ways.

Scenario 6: Desire for lower running costs, sustainable business practices

o Newer technology will likely be more productive and may offer lower running

cost.

o Delays equipment ROI and lowers projected revenue savings.

o Can result in maintaining a workflow that is environmentally unsound, opening

up possible PR damage in a world where eco-friendliness is increasingly

prioritized.

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Data from InfoTrends’ CMYK+ research

An InfoTrends study published in December 2016 explored the use of special effects

beyond CMYK in digital printing. Key results of that study are summarized in the next few

paragraphs to describe the market opportunity and print buyer interest. The study

underscores the importance of a value-based strategy for PSPs.

Figure 1: A Value-Driven Strategy

This study concluded that there is a massive opportunity for digital print enhancement

within promotional printing applications that has barely been acted upon. Nearly 1.8 trillion

color pages in the US and Western Europe (around 30% of the total color pages) currently

receive some type of special effects or enhancements. About 46% of offset printing that is

enhanced requires two or more enhancements. Many commercial printers already have

sufficient short run (<1,000) enhanced offset print volumes to justify a digital offline

enhancement system. Limiting factors may include acquisition price and the ability to do

multiple enhancements in a single pass.

Only 0.5% of these pages are being enhanced with a digital process, such as in-line with a

digital press like HP Indigo or off-line on a system like MGI or Scodix. InfoTrends projects that

digital print enhancement volume will demonstrate a 27% compound annual growth rate

(CAGR) from 2015 to 2020. This volume is expected to reach 25 billion pages by 2020 (less

than 2% of the 1.8 trillion available enhancement market). This growth rate is more than

twice the rate of the CMYK digital printing market. We expect above overall market

growth rates for digital print enhancements to continue well into the 2020s

Roughly half of the PSPs that InfoTrends surveyed were considering a digital print

enhancement system in the next two years. Of those, 58% will most likely buy a digital

Cost-driven

strategy

Va

lue

-drive

n

stra

teg

y

Productivity• Speed

• Automation• Uptime

Quality• Gamut

• Spot colors• Resolution• Consistency

Running costs• Consumables

• Service• Equipment

Substrates• Grades

• Weights• Sizes

Enhancements• White

• Coatings• Textures• Security• Metallics• Fluorescents

Supply chain• Inventory

• Delivery• Time

• Premium offerings

• Standout capabilities

• Design excellence

• Differentiation

Digital Print Advantages• Short runs, quick turnaround

• Personalization• Print on demand• Just-in-time manufacturing• The digital printer as a virtual document repository

CMYK+ Supports a Value-Driven Strategy

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


printer with in-line enhancement capability while 42% said they would likely purchase an

offline system. PSPs’ profit margins on digital print enhancement can be very high (50% to

400%), resulting in a quick return on investment (ROI) from the equipment purchase. PSPs

only need low utilization rates (30% or less) with in-line or off-line systems if they have

properly priced and promoted the capability. The key factor to achieving higher margins is

upselling the print enhancement. Many printers are not aggressively promoting or training

their reps to upsell the capability.

Print buyers are very interested in digital print enhancements. Most are unaware of the

capabilities, even if they have purchased print for many years. Most reported very high

acceptance of print/enhancement quality. Print buyers indicated they are willing to pay a

premium of 24% to 89% over CMYK only for digital print enhancements. Print buyers stated

the highest premiums for textured, foils, and metallic (40% to 89%) and lower premiums for

specialty, spot color, and coating (24% to 37%). Print buyers expect that price premiums

and PSPs’ prices for print enhancements are similar in most cases.

Data from InfoTrends’ application research

An InfoTrends study published in the beginning of 2019 called Applications in Digital Print

Survey found that application expansion is top of mind for PSPs. Nearly 40% of survey

respondents that are planning to expand their range of print applications said they

expected to do so with business development. Other top-ranked expansion needs include

a larger print format and expansion of finishing equipment in production.

Figure 2: Service Expansion Needs

9%

2%

2%

11%

13%

16%

16%

18%

24%

24%

24%

38%

38%

49%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Other

Other non-technical reasons

Higher ink density / color strength

Long sheet up to 47'/ 1,200 mm

Long sheet up to 27'/ 700mm

Support for non-paper / specialty media

Other technical requirements

Specialty colors (in addition to CMYK)

Support for heavier media

Better use of current workflow software

Changes in sales team/channel

New workflow software

More Business development

Additional finishing equipment

Larger print format

N = 45 U.S. Respondents who plan on expanding their range of print applications

Source: Applications in Digital Print Survey; Keypoint Intelligence – InfoTrends 2018

What would you need to expand your print application range?

Multiple Responses Permitted

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


Conclusions and Recommendations

Four questions were asked at the beginning of this research. First, we examined how often

vendors met their targeted launch dates, concluding that these time frames were

infrequently realized – with many products seeing delays of three years or more from their

initial technology demonstrations until release. Our research also showed that target dates

for new product introduction generally fell within a year of the started dates, and that

existing product line extension launches were generally released on time – albeit with

several notable exceptions.

The second question that InfoTrends investigated revolved around how often technology

demonstrations actually made it to a commercial product release. Of the 23 technology

demonstrations we surveyed, only one made its intended launch date. Exactly 17 of our

highlighted products were delayed for at least three years, and five were never released

at all. While this shows the majority of products do see commercial releases, it

demonstrates concrete evidence that the initial release date should almost always be

disregarded as misleading or overly optimistic.

The third topic this paper examined was the product reception. We noted that, in general,

press and analysts are quick to gloss over the fact that most products and technology

demonstrations miss their release window. As a result, many objective news sources do not

do a proper job of tempering client expectations, nor challenging the fact that most

system vendors drastically underestimate the time it takes to bring a product to market.

Lastly, we looked at what impact all this had on the users. While definitive results are hard

to quantify, we developed six potential scenarios that lay out the possibilities of a

meaningful product delay. In general, while certain press outlets and analysts fail to cover

the probability of delays, there is no doubt that buyers should consider them before a

massive purchase. A delay can result in loss of income, outsourced workflows, missed

business objectives, and more. Print buyers cannot afford to be as naïve as the print

industry media when it comes to considering these purchases.

Suggested Talk Track

Technology demonstrations and new product announcements from the last three drupas

paint a picture of:

Overly optimistic availability dates

Significant numbers of technologies that never come to market

Customers passing up products and features that could have had an immediate

benefit

ANALYSIS

Innovation at drupa


New technology development does not happen overnight. It is common for an eight-year

cycle to be required - from the first showing of a technology through beta testing and the

ultimate product release. Historic examples, like Landa and Xeikon Trillium, help bring this

point home

The fallout of a product delay can be hard to quantify, but likely includes:

An organization’s inability to handle volume increases

Open questions about renewing existing leases or signing new ones

An inability to handle existing contractual volume

An inability to expand into new application areas, even ones that have been planned

for several years

Difficulty migrating work from offset presses to digital printing solutions

Higher running costs and inefficient business practices

Overall, these delays impact the health of the business, including reducing its ability to

implement new market initiatives. This, in turn, can make an organization less competitive

in the market space, and reduce its ability to develop employee skills that could benefit

the business and spur productivity in the future.

Regarding CMYK+ features, delays in implementing these can hamper a company’s ability

to follow a value-driven strategy and address a growing market opportunity.

4AA7-5940EEW, July 2019

Documents

INNOVATION AT DRUPA · drupa, the technology is unveiled and demonstrated to the audience. At the “second” drupa, beta sites and early placements are announced. Finally – most