 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2003Another death knell for film
Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in response to this news release: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20030925-01.shtml Underneath the optimistic tone of the news release is the assumption that Kodak can no longer make money just making film, which is its traditional product. And when it moves from film to digital, Kodak suddenly faces dozens of serious competitors. Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, even though they're quite good at it. Kodak 'may' be successful in this new venue. The future will tell. Re B&W film, let's hope some good company will buy the products/plants when they decide to sell, and it will go before color IMHO. Jorge > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is > not, even though they're quite good at it. > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Kodak can no longer make money just making film, which is its traditional > product. I should add that Kodak announced a large cut in dividends -- that's the big reason their stock dropped. The cut in dividends along with reduced capital expenditures and an emphasis on new markets and "efficiency" sounds like a company in fairly serious financial or structural trouble. We've seen Kodak's management digging a deep hole for itself over the past few years, dispite lucrative government contracts and some fantastic manufacturing capabilities. It may have come home to roost. > > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I should add that Kodak announced a large cut in dividends -- that's the big > reason their stock dropped. What Kodak need to do is bring back 620, 828 and 127 film. All the people who have aquired substantial collections of cameras that take obsolete film types off of eBay over the last several years, will just have to run roll after roll of film through these cameras to see if the live up to their overhyped reputations e.g. Kodak Medalist, Bantam RF, Baby Rollei, etc. Yes, it'll be temporary but at least Kodak could pump up their dividends for a while. > The cut in dividends along with reduced capital expenditures and an emphasis > on new markets and "efficiency" sounds like a company in fairly serious [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > big > > reason their stock dropped. On 9/29/2003 7:07 PM steven.sawyer@banet.net spake thus: > What Kodak need to do is bring back 620, 828 and 127 film. All the people who > have aquired substantial collections of cameras that take obsolete film types > off of eBay over the last several years, will just have to run roll after roll > of film through these cameras to see if the live up to their overhyped > reputations e.g. Kodak Medalist, Bantam RF, Baby Rollei, etc. Yes, it'll be > temporary but at least Kodak could pump up their dividends for a while. If only. David "I'd like some 116 for my No. 2 Cartridge Hawk-Eye, please" Nebenzahl  SignatureCALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown. "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message news ...... > Underneath the optimistic tone of the news release is the assumption that > Kodak can no longer make money just making film, which is its traditional > product. ...... My guess is that B&W film is quite profitable. The problem is the size of the market. A company the size of Kodak has a lot of hungry shareholders. I suspect that Kodak has no choice but to take the path it has announced, and it will end in disaster. But the B&W plant might be good enough for the liquidators to sell to a smaller business which could happily make money out of continuing the B+W products. I wonder if Agfa's B&W business will befall the same fate. Or maybe their recent savage cutbacks to a minimal range of B&W products will be enough to forestall disaster indefinitely. > My guess is that B&W film is quite profitable. The problem is the > size of the market. A company the size of Kodak has a lot of hungry > shareholders. I suspect that Kodak has no choice but to take the path > it has announced, and it will end in disaster. But the B&W plant > might be good enough for the liquidators to sell to a smaller business > which could happily make money out of continuing the B+W products. Kodak stock has plummeted from $80 five years ago to $22 today. Over 30,000 Kodak employees (many of them stockholders) have lost their job in the last five years. > I wonder if Agfa's B&W business will befall the same fate. Or maybe > their recent savage cutbacks to a minimal range of B&W products will > be enough to forestall disaster indefinitely. Agfa tried to sell it's film business, but could not find a suitable buyer. > "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message news > ...... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My guess is that B&W film is quite profitable. The problem is the > size of the market. Bingo! People still make a profit manufacturing oil paint. Film should be the same. > > > Underneath the optimistic tone of the news release is the assumption > that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bingo! People still make a profit manufacturing oil paint. Film should be > the same. Good news is that silver costs will probably go lower. CNBC reported today that 40% of demand for silver is for imaging products, which are expected to decline with the move toward digital imaging. Specialty manufacturers of B&W products will do fine. Too many people are unwilling or uninterested in tying themselves to a computer the way digital cameras do. Consequently there will continue to be a market for film, even if it becomes a smaller market. However, I hope everyone's satisfied with the state of the art in film because I see no reason to expect any company to devote any significant money to further research and development of better films. On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > Too many people are unwilling or uninterested in tying themselves to a > computer the way digital cameras do. Consequently there will continue to be > a market for film, even if it becomes a smaller market. However, I hope > everyone's satisfied with the state of the art in film because I see no > reason to expect any company to devote any significant money to further > research and development of better films. There could be sort of a "boutique" market, similar to today's audiophile niche that is still using vinyl (and presumably still refining the technology). But it would be expen$ive. SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > niche that is still using vinyl (and presumably still refining the > technology). But it would be expen$ive. What I always found interesting is the contention that digital was cheaper and faster than film. However, it seems to me that it isn't. Cost of equipment, both camera and computer, and the time spent fixing things the photographer wants changed costs a lot also. Shooting film, and having pro's do the work usually costs less and then doesn't require a lot of fixing, i.e. time (and money). That and now everyone who clicks a shutter is suddenly a pro photographer Alexis Neel wrote (in part): > That and now everyone who clicks a shutter is suddenly a pro > photographer Wheras in the good old days, anyone with a 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses and a Yellow Pages listing was a pro photographer. Later on (after the movie "Blow Up") he needed a motor drive as well and, preferably, a camera-mounted electronic flash. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 7:30am up 19:46, 3 users, load average: 2.20, 2.21, 2.15 > > Too many people are unwilling or uninterested ... I find it interesting that one-time-use (disposable) film cameras outsell the traditional re-usable cameras (point-and-shoot and SLR combined). It is not uncommon for one person to purchase several disposable (one-time-use) cameras, even though an inexpensive bubble-pack camera would be a better deal financially. It seems that the mass of consumers desire cheap and easy solutions rather than technically superior but more expensive solutions. No one ever went broke by underestimating the technical savvy of the general public ;-) ___________________________ > > On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That and now everyone who clicks a shutter is suddenly a pro > photographer >>>Too many people are unwilling or uninterested ... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It seems that the mass of consumers desire cheap and easy solutions > rather than technically superior but more expensive solutions. Keep in mind that single-use cameras are appealing because there's little fear of losing or damaging them. I would never hand my SLR to my 5-year old at the beach - but I'd happily give her a single-use camera. Not only am I less worried about losing the camera, there's also less risk the film will be damaged during loading or unloading the camera (since you don't do it). Dana > On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > audiophile niche that is still using vinyl (and presumably still > refining the technology). But it would be expen$ive. Designing better cutters than Grampian and Westrex? Designing better vacuum tubes than the 5881 and 6550? Or 807's for the real historiphiles? Designing better output transformers? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 7:25am up 19:41, 3 users, load average: 2.24, 2.21, 2.13 Hey, there's nothing better on a hot day than a cold 807... Denny - K8DO > > On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Designing better output transformers? > Designing better cutters than Grampian and Westrex? > > Designing better vacuum tubes than the 5881 and 6550? Or 807's for the > real historiphiles? > > Designing better output transformers? Nah. Ortofon cutters, 300B SE and Partridge... ((-: Jorge How 'bout a vinyl scanning laser turntable for $10,000? You can even select what part of the groove you want to "scan". > > On 9/25/2003 9:34 PM JRF spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org > ^^-^^ 7:25am up 19:41, 3 users, load average: 2.24, 2.21, 2.13 I still don't understand why Kodak hasn't gone into film scanning in a big way. They were developing a APS film drive for computers and then dropped the product. Fuji's the only one out there now with a dedicated APS scanner. The general public is still mostly unaware of film scanners. As Kodak makes the film to begin with, I would think that they would be the best ones to produce scanners/software for film scanning. APS seems to be tailor made for the application and would be good for beginners. Then they could step up to 35mm and MF. Digital for the consumer is a scam. They'd be much better off with film (even APS) and the minilab for most applications. > And when it moves from film to digital, Kodak suddenly faces dozens of > serious competitors. > > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. Kodak started serious digital work many years ago (mid-1980s?). At the moment they are certainly in a leadership position in digital photography, if not actually the leader. A lot of what is inside competitors' equipment is licensed from Kodak. The last thing I read about profitability, though, was that their digital camera business was losing money, even though they sell more digital cameras than anyone else. Or were at the time of the report. They're climbing a really big hill. David Foy > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. Agfa had the same problem with their scanners. I recall that they lost business big time and ditched the whole lot. It seems that the photo material companies don't do digital too well, whereas the computer companies survive, partially by hyping inferior products that have taken years to actually be useful. When I think of the endless stream of consumer digital products, with awful service backup and immediate depreciation, it's enough to make one smile inwardly at all the peeps at work who ask you, 'what digital camera should I buy?'! On 26/9/03 7:20 pm, in article Sj0db.14708$AC3.425404@news2.telusplanet.net, > Kodak started serious digital work many years ago (mid-1980s?). At the > moment they are certainly in a leadership position in digital photography, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > not, >> even though they're quite good at it. It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a 3 GHz CPU to edit text and surf the NET? But then salespersons are paid based on how much they sell... Jorge, that has used obsolete computers most of the time..for some 30yrs. > Agfa had the same problem with their scanners. I recall that they lost > business big time and ditched the whole lot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > inwardly at all the peeps at work who ask you, 'what digital camera > should I buy?'! > It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. > For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a > 3 GHz CPU to edit text and surf the NET? > But then salespersons are paid based on how much they sell... Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one hard drive? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 9:10pm up 13:33, 3 users, load average: 2.14, 2.11, 2.07 No -why? When I switch computers, I back my files on a remote server or zip discs. > > It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. > > For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org > ^^-^^ 9:10pm up 13:33, 3 users, load average: 2.14, 2.11, 2.07 > No -why? When I switch computers, I back my files on a remote server or zip > discs. Switching computers is not the usual time to do a database reorganization. You normally do that when the data and indices have been updated so much, or when access patterns have changed so much, that accessing the data takes too long. A reorganization fixes things like fragmented records over multiple pages, records retrieved together not on the same page often enough, etc. With IBM DB2, at least, fragmentation internal to pages is eliminated, records split over multiple pages are coalesced onto one page, the indices become neater, ... , so that updates and retrievals go much faster. But the reorganize process is extremely IO intensive most of the time (mostly doing seeks on my dual hard drive 10,000rpm Ultra-2 SCSI hard drives), but when analyzing the statistics (so the query optimizer can come up with effecient retrieval strategies), it can saturate the two 550 MHz Pentium III processors on my current machine. That is why my new machine will have dual XEON 3.06GHz 1Megabyte L3 cache processors and 4 10,000rpm Ultra/320 SCSI hard drives for the database stuff and a cheap 7200rpm ATA hard drive for the programs. All 5 hard drives will have 8 Megabyte cache memories in them. I know I could get a single hard drive with the same storage capacity for a lot less money, but the extra spindles should reduce the seeking a whole lot. I am hoping this will make my 10 to 12 hour jobs run somewhat faster. >>>It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. >>>For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one >>hard drive? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 6:55am up 23:18, 3 users, load average: 2.07, 2.08, 2.02 No, but I've designed and managed lots of time-space-time switches with thousands of 2mb/s inputs controlled by hundreds of distibuted real time processors - AKA digital telephone switches. Now, at home I have a 1.4G Athlon with 256 Meg DDR, 2 winchesters - one for data, one for swap and backup. It isn't state of the art and it wasn't by the last time I've upgraded. I only miss speed when I decide to run SPICE. Coments? Jorge >> It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. >> For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one > hard drive? On 9/27/2003 6:57 PM Jorge Omar spake thus: > No, but I've designed and managed lots of time-space-time switches with > thousands of 2mb/s inputs controlled by hundreds of distibuted real time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Coments? Yes: what are you doing with such a fast computer if you're such a Luddite? Mine's a 700 mHz (P3). >>> It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. >>> For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one >> hard drive? SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one > hard drive? Yes, but only back in the days when people still used well-designed database architectures (instead of glorified spreadsheets). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only >> one hard drive? > > Yes, but only back in the days when people still used well-designed > database architectures (instead of glorified spreadsheets). Reminds me of when I first wrote a relational dbms for UNIX in the late 1970s. No one wanted to use it at first: "We do not need a dbms: a bunch of flat files would be more efficient and easier to use." Well they might have been right if their assumptions (they thought they were specifications) were correct and unchanging, that they had anticipated all the ways in which users would use the data, etc. All wrong. But one guy thought he had designed a dbms (actually a spreadsheet, but he did not know that), but had one tiny problem: we were running PDP-11/70s and VAX-11/780s at the time and there were only 65KBytes of address space for users. When his "database", stored entirely in memory except when closing down it was written to disk, and when starting it was read from disk) got over about 32KBytes, it would not run (ran out of memory, of course), and he did not know what to do. I told him he would have to store the "database" on disk and devise effective means to page in the working set of data as needed. This was beyond him, so he became my first dbms customer. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 7:05am up 23:28, 3 users, load average: 2.18, 2.17, 2.09 >> It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. >> For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one >hard drive? I have nothing (database-like) that comes even close to 100 Mbyte. Even on my old Pentium 133, that would simply be a matter of reading the database in memory and writing it back to the disk. Get an absolete 9 GB SCSI disk that can sustain 20 Mbytes/s and it will take all of 10 seconds (plus processing). SignaturePhilip Homburg begin no-virus-in-sight.exe "I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!! billy gates why do you make this possible ? Stop making money and fix your software!!" -- W32/Blaster-A >Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one >hard drive? Why just this morning I was thinking that this is something I really ought to try ! Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com Earlier in this thread "K" claimed: >err.. Konica predate Kodak by 8 years when it comes to manufacturing film This is not correct. Konica's own website says they started manufacturing in 1882: http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=konica+history&sub=Search&ei=UTF-8&url=hUc xf4lvW5gJ:www.konica.jp/global/about/about03.html Kodak began manufacturing dry plates in 1880: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/aboutKodak/kodakHistory/eastman.shtml Kodak wins by 2 years! And Kodak DID invent roll film, which is documented on the above page. Derek >>Ever do a database reorganization with a single slow CPU and only one >>hard drive? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.com Ah, you're born dabbler, John. I thought by now you would have a whole tutorial on your site for databse reorganization with antique equipment. Would Glycin help? Cheers Robert Vervoordt, MFA >Ah, you're born dabbler, John. I thought by now you would have a >whole tutorial on your site for databse reorganization with antique >equipment. > >Would Glycin help? With MySQL ? ;>) Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com reply to john@darkroompro.com >It's the same problem as when purchasing a new PC. >For most users, the obsolete one is plenty enough - why does one needs a >3 GHz CPU to edit text and surf the NET? >But then salespersons are paid based on how much they sell... http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785 Pentium V will launch with 64-bit Windows Elements 5GHz and 64 bit coming to a computer near you in January 2004. >Jorge, that has used obsolete computers most of the time..for some 30yrs. No doubt. As soon as you purchase it, it is already obsolete ! Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com And when I do an upgrade (from time to time; to run SPICE, an electronic design package that's a huge resources graber; for really complex designs you leave the computer running for hours) I don't buy the latest CPU, always some two steps below since these are the cost effective ones. Jorge > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.com > And when I do an upgrade (from time to time; to run SPICE, an electronic > design package that's a huge resources graber; for really complex designs > you leave the computer running for hours) I don't buy the latest CPU, > always some two steps below since these are the cost effective ones. Yes; I tell people to buy a computer with 2/3 of the maximum speed available at the time. That's where the best price-performance ratio seems to be available. > And when I do an upgrade (from time to time; to run SPICE, an electronic > design package that's a huge resources graber; for really complex designs [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > John S. Douglas, Photographer > > http://www.darkroompro.com During the late 90's NASA was doing tests on the 486 chip. They were planning on replacing the 386 chips in the space shuttel computers! At the time second and third generation Pentiums were available. The software the computers run is completely custom and uses virtually all functions of the chips. They ran automated tests to see where the results from the 486 differed from the 386. IIRC the 486 had several dozen differences but at the time I read the article none discovered would change the results of computations. Old software sometimes does everything one needs and new chips aren't always completely compatible. Another reason not to jump on the latest, greatest, fastest bandwagon! Sherman http://www.dunnamphoto.com (MCSE, MCDBA) > During the late 90's NASA was doing tests on the 486 chip. They were > planning on replacing the 386 chips in the space shuttel computers! At the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.dunnamphoto.com > (MCSE, MCDBA) I've always figured a good policy is to wait 6 months before buying something totally new to the market. I cannot recollect ever buying something that was the "1st" Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.com Solution: Buy a new system every Monday. Cccheers, Robert Vervoordt, MFA >>>Jorge, that has used obsolete computers most of the time..for some 30yrs. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Buy a new system every Monday. Not really. As soon as it's available, it's already obsolete. My solution, like most others is to simply not buy the top-of-the-line. In fact I'm currently running a AMD 1800+ XP CPU which is just fine for my needs. Like cameras, it's all about defining your needs. Regards John S. Douglas, Photographer http://www.darkroompro.com reply to john@darkroompro.com >>>>Jorge, that has used obsolete computers most of the time..for some 30yrs. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >running a AMD 1800+ XP CPU which is just fine for my needs. Like cameras, it's >all about defining your needs. Of course you do know that that's exactly what I do. I sit safely behind the curve. :-D >Regards > > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.com > reply to john@darkroompro.com Robert Vervoordt, MFA I don't smile inwardly, I feel bad for them. They're dropping hundreds of dollars on inferior imaging devices and celebrating the fact that they can "adjust" their pictures on their own as opposed to relying on the supposedly inaccurate minilab. Just look at what's available in the Minolta line of 35mm cameras. Absolutely fantastic cameras with auto-everything for less than the price of these clearly inferior digital "toys". At my job, I'm seen as an annoyance. I tell them if they must go digital, just wait until the affordable devices are in the 10MP to 20MP range. I insist that film will give them better value for their money. I remind them that that old Olympus, Yashica or even Konica at home is better than that digital camera they've got their eyes on. I try to educate them about film scanners. All to no avail - they come by my desk showing me pictures that are worse that what I see out of the run-of-the-mill point and shoot, complete with red-eye to boot. It's sad what these manufacturers are doing to the point-and-click market. They're filling up their closets with equipment that is inferior now and will be obsolete by next year. > it's enough to make one smile inwardly at all the > peeps at work who ask you, 'what digital camera should I buy?'! > Kodak started serious digital work many years ago (mid-1980s?). At > the moment they are certainly in a leadership position in digital > photography, if not actually the leader. A lot of what is inside > competitors' equipment is licensed from Kodak. Earlier. Kodak was the second string for the Hubble, alas thier mirror was not flown :( Kodak has also been very active in CCD development both for scientific units, and developing anti-blooming for pictorial use. I shudder to think how much they have pissed away on APS though. SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. Interesting article on Kodak on column 1, page C1, of yesterday's (9/26) Wall Street Journal. In part: "It's natural to ask: If this [current decision to go into consumer ink-jet printers] is a bad plan, what is the buggy-whipmaker to do instead? The answer is to let loose the mania for growth and milk the company for cash, which it produces in prodigious amounts. Spin off the digital division, cut more costs, hold the dividend steady or increase it, pay down debt and make modest investments with a clearly articulated road map to positive returns." Grab hold of that copy of the WSJ and read it for - if nothing else - food for thought. > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. > And when it moves from film to digital, Kodak suddenly faces dozens of > serious competitors. > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. Rather harsh judgement... A recent newspaper article about Kodak slashing its stock dividend also stated that Kodak is #3 in digital photography (Sony is #1, Olympus is #2). Kodak indeed is very competitive against its "dozens of serious competitors." Compare Kodak's position as #3 with the necessity a few months ago for Minolta's merger to remain financially solvent. > Underneath the optimistic tone of the news release is the assumption that > Kodak can no longer make money just making film, which is its traditional > product. Money that is not needed for operating expenses (including research and development) can be paid out to shareholders as dividends. Kodak is slashing its stock dividend so that the money instead can be used for R&D in digital areas. That newspaper article also stated that Kodak will be private branding some of its films. Kodak still will be able to milk its film cash cow for many years to come. Compare the actions of Kodak with Ilford: Ilford has been milking its b&w films for whatever profits are available, and has been trying to re-invent itself as a digital printing entity (a manufacturer of paper and inks for digital printing). If these re-inventions are scary to photographers, then it is their (i.e., the photographers') own fault beause they are purchasing too much digital gear ;-) How do you people expect a buggy whip manufacturer to remain profitable if you people don't keep buying their buggy whips? Remember that if Kodak goes under, it's probably your fault because you didn't buy enough of their film ;-) ___________________________ > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. True, but Kodak is rather deliquent on publisizing the advantages of film and the imaging potential of home scanners. As a for instance: the proven longevity of Kodachrome is hardly touted by Kodak, who I could see either discontinuing or selling off this flagship product. > How do you people expect a buggy whip manufacturer to remain > profitable if you people don't keep buying their buggy whips? Remember > that if Kodak goes under, it's probably your fault because you didn't > buy enough of their film ;-) > Kodak stock dropped sharply this morning (down 12% from yesterday) in > response to this news release: > Film was Kodak's baby -- they invented it -- but digital technology is not, > even though they're quite good at it. err.. Konica predate Kodak by 8 years when it comes to manufacturing film k |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.