Unless I can get one that will crank off 4x6's that are identical to the ones coming from my SLR, I don't see the point in it. I have a Canon Rebel G, and my 300 dollar digicam has the same quality for 4x6's, and it's pretty close on 8x10's. For most decent digital cameras, the limiting quality factor is the printer printing out the picture, not the camera itself.
I know you can get photos printed on photographic paper (well, not the same as "real" photo paper obviously since it'd lack the same emulsion) at those little Kodak booths in every drugstore but I'm still not convinced I'd rather preserve my precious moments in life that way versus the traditional route. Here's where I say digital is better and worse. The ink and paper used make a big difference when printing your digital pic, the ink could eventually run/fade/burst into flames (well, maybe not the last one).
However, that happens to traditional photographs over time as well. With digital pics, you just whip out your DVD as xythex so astutely pointed out and print you up a fresh copy.
This is Canon's prosumer entry into the digital forray, and it'll get the job more than done for anyone except professional photographers (i.e. guys and gals who don't blink at dropping 20k on a lens).