 |
 | 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 / Large Format / August 2004Now it's Ilford!
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/business/general/s/128/128120_fears_for_700_jo bs_as_ilford_faces_closure.html So freak out already. I'm not worried. >So freak out already. I'm not worried. Perhaps Leica and Linhoff could join together and purchase them ?? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Linhoff Is the name of a camera repair company in Micigan. Perhaps you mean the camera company Linhof?  SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >> Linhoff > >Is the name of a camera repair company in Micigan. > >Perhaps you mean the camera company Linhof? I do that all of the time ! Thanks for the correction Bob ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >>So freak out already. I'm not worried. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email I do not know Linhof's complete product line, but as I recall, companies like Rodenstock, Leitz, and Zeiss make many things other than cameras. For all I know, their photographic stuff is a money-losing proposition, subsidized by their other products. Similarly to the record industry. I happen to prefer "classical" music and do not much care for "popular" music. But I must recognize that record companies pretty much subsidize the classical product with the profits from the popular. I imagine most of these companies are publically owned, but even if privately owned, their shareholders must receive what they perceive to be a fair rate of return on their investments or they will move the capital elsewhere. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:15:00 up 20 days, 1:52, 3 users, load average: 4.36, 4.22, 4.18 > Similarly to the record industry. I happen to prefer "classical" music and > do not much care for "popular" music. But I must recognize that record > companies pretty much subsidize the classical product with the profits > from the popular. Ah, but there is one less royalty to pay for in old classical music. :) Certainly there are the copyrights to the orchestral arrangement and performance, but at least the author/composer royalties have lapsed. >>>So freak out already. I'm not worried. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >all I know, their photographic stuff is a money-losing proposition, >subsidized by their other products. AIR, Zeiss divested of Ikon (the camera division) long ago and Leitz similarly dumped Leica as they had both lost all the money they could afford. Sometimes you can get away with a money loosing flagship product, sometimes even a public company can get away with it for a while. But there are limits. Kodak used to carry a lot of lines that were running at a loss. They got along with it for quite a while, but even they had to pay the piper. The biggest stockholders in publicly held companies, Pension Funds, simply will not stand for their widows and orphans not getting the last penny. (simplified explanation, but it is how it works) |
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
|
©2008 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.