Of course, that's the traditional account. Maybe it depended on where you were sitting at the time. (edit: LOL! Just had a long conversation with my boss, John Lorusso, who worked with IRIS and Scitex, as well as Nash et al. Seems he agrees with you about how wrong I am, Schewe. 'Course, that only proves my point...
)
From my perspective, having heard Nash talk at the MFA in Boston (jeese, when was that? ...a VERY long time ago) and hearing him say that archival color was "the curator's responsibility, not the printer's", then having some very expensive, and not too fabulous prints made by an IRIS printer in these parts (who shall remain unnamed, but with a stellar reputation) my own conclusion at the time was that the technology wasn't there yet, that it was far too fugitive, and simply not up to the hype. Instead of reinforcing the "Fine-Art" claim, it actually refuted it. For me, anyway.
At that point, or nearly then, Epson started using a variable dot size with a random pattern, much like photographic grain- as opposed to the regular grid array on the IRIS. It was then I stopped considering IRIS as even an option. I will say, though, people still cling to their IRIS printers, and it seems to be about that density of ink the things lay down.
Either that or they're still paying it off...
If memory serves, most buyers and collectors still were not willing to take digital prints seriously- that was, oh, in the mid-'90s? I'd actually argue that not until the early '00s did the inkjet print's stigma really seem to fall away... so where does that put Nash Editions? I think you can argue that was more due to the archival, high-gamut inks that Ultrachrome represented than anything IRIS or Nash did.