ZBRA » Topics » Competition

This excerpt taken from the ZBRA 10-K filed Mar 1, 2007.

Competition

Many companies are engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of bar code label printers, card personalization solutions and dye sublimation photo printers. We consider our direct competition in bar code label and receipt printing to be producers of on-demand thermal transfer and direct thermal label printing systems and supplies. We also compete, however, with companies engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of printing systems that use alternative technologies, such as impact dot matrix, ink-jet and laser printing. Similarly, we consider manufacturers of card personalization systems that are based on a broad range of alternative technologies as competition.

Dye sublimation, the technology incorporated in our card printer, is only one of several commercially available types of equipment used to personalize cards. We also compete with companies that produce identification cards using alternative technologies, which include ink-jet, thermal transfer, embossing, film-based systems, encoders, laser engraving and large-scale dye sublimation printers. These card personalization technologies offer viable alternatives to Zebra’s card printers and provide effective competition from a variety of companies, many of which are substantially larger than Zebra. In addition, service bureaus compete for end user business and provide an alternative to the purchase of our card printing equipment and supplies. Manufacturers also use dye sublimation technology in their digital photo printers.

Our ability to compete effectively depends on a number of factors. These factors include the reliability, quality and reputation of the manufacturer and its products; hardware and software innovations and specifications; breadth of product offerings; information systems connectivity; price; level of technical support; supplies and applications support offered by the manufacturer; available distribution channels; and financial resources to support new product design and innovation. We believe that Zebra presently competes favorably with respect to these factors.

We face competition in one or more of our product lines from many competitors, including the following (listed in alphabetical order): Altech; Argox; Canon; CIM; Cognitive Solutions, a subsidiary of Axiohm Transaction Solutions; ColorX; Copal; Datacard; Datamax, a unit of Dover Corporation; Evolis; Fargo Electronics; Fuji; Godex; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; Intermec Technologies; Lexmark International; LogickaComp; MagiCard; Matica; Microcom; Mitsubishi; NBS; Nisca; Olmec; O’Neil Product Development; Olympus; Paxar; Polaroid; Printronix; Sato; Shinko; Song Woo Electronics; Sony; Taiwan Semiconductor; Tokyo Electric Company; Victor Data Systems; Woosim; and Xerox. Competition in the kiosk arena is vast. A few of the competitors we face include Custom Engineering, Star Micronics, Epson, Citizen, Boca Systems and Practical Automation.

The supplies business is highly fragmented and competition is comprised of numerous competitors of various sizes depending on the geographic area.

10




This excerpt taken from the ZBRA 10-K filed Feb 28, 2006.

Competition

Many companies are engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of bar code label printers, card personalization solutions and dye sublimation photo printers. We consider our direct competition in bar code label and receipt printing to be producers of on-demand thermal transfer and direct thermal label printing systems and supplies. We also compete, however, with companies engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of printing systems that use alternative technologies, such as impact dot matrix, ink-jet and laser printing. Similarly, we consider manufacturers of card personalization systems that are based on a broad range of alternative technologies as competition.

 

Dye sublimation, the technology incorporated in our card printer, is only one of several commercially available types of equipment used to personalize cards. We also compete with companies that produce identification cards using alternative technologies, which include ink-jet, thermal transfer, embossing, film-based systems, encoders, laser engraving and large-scale dye sublimation printers. These card personalization technologies offer viable alternatives to Zebra’s card printers and provide effective competition from a variety of companies, many of which are substantially larger than Zebra. In addition, service bureaus compete for end user business and provide an alternative to the purchase of our card printing equipment and supplies. Manufacturers also use dye sublimation technology in their digital photo printers.

 

Our ability to compete effectively depends on a number of factors. These factors include the reliability, quality and reputation of the manufacturer and its products; hardware and software innovations and specifications; breadth of product offerings; information systems connectivity; price; level of technical support; supplies and applications support offered by the manufacturer; available distribution channels; and financial resources to support new product design and innovation. We believe that Zebra presently competes favorably with respect to these factors.

 

We face competition in one or more of our product lines from the many competitors, including the following (listed in alphabetical order): Altech; Argox; Canon; CIM; Cognitive Solutions, a subsidiary of Axiohm Transaction Solutions; ColorX; Copal; Datacard; Datamax, a unit of Dover Corporation; Evolis; Fargo Electronics; Fuji; Godex; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; Intermec Technologies; Lexmark International; LogickaComp; MagiCard; Matica; Microcom; Mitsubishi; NBS; Nisca; Olmec; O’Neil Product Development; Olympus; Paxar; Poloroid; Printronix; Sato; Shinko; Song Woo Electronics; Sony; Taiwan Semiconductor; Tokyo Electric Company; Victor Data Systems; Woosim; and Xerox

 

The supplies business is highly fragmented and competition is comprised of numerous competitors of various sizes depending on the geographic area.

 

This excerpt taken from the ZBRA 10-K filed Mar 3, 2005.

Competition

Many companies are engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of bar code label printers and card personalization solutions. We consider our direct competition in bar code label and receipt printing to be producers of on-demand thermal transfer and direct thermal label printing systems and supplies. We also compete, however, with companies engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of printing systems that use alternative technologies, such as impact dot matrix, ink-jet and laser printing. Similarly, we consider manufacturers of card personalization systems that are based on a broad range of alternative technologies as competition.

 

Our ability to compete effectively depends on a number of factors. These factors include the reliability, quality and reputation of the manufacturer and its products; hardware and software innovations and specifications; breadth of product offerings; information systems connectivity; price; level of technical support; supplies and applications support offered by the manufacturer; available distribution channels; and financial resources to support new product design and innovation. We believe that Zebra presently competes favorably with respect to these factors.

 

No single competitor competes across the entire breadth of our product line. Significant competition, however, is faced in each product segment. For low-cost desktop label printer products, our principal competitors are Argox; Godex; Cognitive Solutions, a subsidiary of Axiohm Transaction Solutions; Tokyo Electric Company (TEC); Taiwan Semiconductor; Microcom; Woosim; and Datamax, a unit of Dover Corporation. In the mid-range printer market, our principal competitors are Datamax; UBI and Intermec, subsidiaries of Unova; Monarch Marking Systems, a subsidiary of Paxar; Sato; and TEC. Principal competition in the high end of the market derives from Sato, TEC, Printronix, and Intermec. For print engines, the principal competitor is Sato. For mobile printers, the principal competitors are Monarch Marking Systems and O’Neil Product Development. The potential for greater competition is increasing, we believe, as companies view mobile printing applications to be an attractive market. Many of the same companies with whom we compete in thermal printing also compete with us in RFID. The notable companies in this area are Printronix, Intermec, Sato and Monarch.

 

Several competitors manufacture card personalization equipment using dye sublimation technology. These competitors include Nisca, Datacard, Fargo Electronics, ColorX, Polaroid, MagiCard, Evolis, LogickaComp, Printherm, CIM, NBS, Matica, Song Woo Electronics, and Victor Data Systems.

 

9



 

Dye sublimation, the technology incorporated in our card printers, is only one of several commercially available types of equipment used to personalize cards. We also compete with companies that produce identification cards using alternative technologies, which include ink-jet, thermal transfer, embossing, film-based systems, encoders, laser engraving and large-scale dye sublimation printers. These card personalization technologies offer viable alternatives to Zebra’s card printers and provide effective competition from a variety of companies, many of which are substantially larger than Zebra, including Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, and Lexmark International. In addition, service bureaus compete for end user business and provide an alternative to the purchase of our card printing equipment and supplies.

 

Manufacturers also use dye sublimation technology in their digital photo printers. Companies participating in this area include Sony, Mitsubishi, Copal, Shinko, Altech, Olmec, and Olympus. In addition, there are several other companies that participate in producing photo printers using other technologies. These companies include Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Polaroid, and Fuji.

 

The supplies business is highly fragmented and competition is comprised of numerous competitors of various sizes depending on the geographic area.

 

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki