[Article] Kodak Leads in U.S. Digital-Camera Market

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Allodoxaphobia, May 9, 2005.

  1. Allodoxaphobia, May 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Allodoxaphobia

    Russell Guest

    It maybe a surprise, but Kodak are a very strong company with fingers in
    lots of different pies.

    I personally like them as a company, but that is neither here nor there.

    Just for info, pre Canon D30 DSLR's were developed in conjunction with
    Kodak, such as the EOS DCS1, DCS3 and D2000 cameras.

    I was once of the proud owners of one of their first digital compacts, and
    despite the size, it was faultless and so were they as a company. But I
    sold it because I preferred film at that point.
    Russell, May 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Actually, it looks like Canon is gaining faster than Kodak. Looks like
    a three horse race, Kodak, Canon, and Sony.
    Ron Hunter, May 10, 2005
  4. Allodoxaphobia

    Tony Guest

    And Kodak cameras are all made in the good old USA?
    Tony, May 10, 2005
  5. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I also found that my first digital camera (DX3600) had some
    shortcomings, all of which I passed to Kodak. My current one (DX6440)
    addressed every one of those shortcomings, and more. Now, there are
    only a couple of items I would like to see changed, and the compression
    issue is one of them. As for firmware updates, it seems that Kodak
    policy is NOT to make 'improvements' with firmware, only to correct
    performance 'bugs' this way. The policy seems geared toward selling a
    new camera, rather than improving the operation of the old one.
    Indeed, the newer version of my camera does have two compression
    settings, unfortunately neither is 'uncompressed'.
    Ron Hunter, May 10, 2005
  6. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I seriously doubt that. It is a global economy.
    Ron Hunter, May 10, 2005
  7. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sure, Roy, your Nikon and Fuji will cease to function when their market
    share drops below 5%... Grin.
    And if Kodak cameras were that unreliable, don't you think sales would
    drop, rather than rise? After all, what does Kodak know about making
    cameras, they haven't been at it but a few years, right?
    And, yes, Joe Public IS about as stupid as the advertising industry
    thinks he is, otherwise all those companies like Canon and Sony would
    stop advertising, right?
    Ron Hunter, May 11, 2005
  8. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Oh? When did they not make cameras? I must have missed that.
    Mine says 'Made in China, designed in Japan, for Eastman Kodak, US.
    It is rather difficult to find ANYTHING that isn't made in China these
    days... Sigh.
    The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.
    No argument there. They do tend to cater to the lower end (most
    numerous) of the market, with a small number of products for the high end.

    Quite true.
    True again, as mentioned above. This is where the volume, and the
    money, is.

    But don't discount ALL Kodak camera owners in that. Some of us are
    interested, just not in the same way.

    Well, journalists must find SOMETHING to write about when they aren't
    bashing GWB... GRin.
    Ron Hunter, May 11, 2005
  9. SNIP
    The (American) worker (or any company that employs workers) should
    compete on other features (like quality, or added value) than lowest
    labor cost.

    Bart van der Wolf, May 12, 2005
  10. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Kodak is still undergoing a switch from a film-based business to a
    digital company. It will probably take another year for them to get
    over most of the expense related to the change.
    Sometimes the 'loss' a company shows is due to inventory writeoffs, and
    such that are 'one time' expenses related to business changes. It may
    take some time for their conversion plan to work through to profits.

    From their annual report:
    ) Results for the year included $557 million of restructuring
    charges; $31 million of purchased R&D; $7 million for a charge related
    to asset impairments and other asset write-offs; a $12 million charge
    related to an intellectual property settlement; $14 million for a charge
    connected with the settlement of a patent infringement claim; $14
    million for a charge connected with a prior-year acquisition; $9 million
    for a charge to write down certain assets held for sale following the
    acquisition of Burrell Companies; $8 million for a donation to a
    technology enterprise; $8 million for legal settlements; a $9 million
    reversal for an environmental reserve; $32 million of earnings from
    discontinued operations related to environmental and tax reserve
    reversals; and a $13 million tax benefit related to patent donations.
    The after-tax impact of these items was $396 million.

    With that explanation, the loss doesn't look that bad for the future.
    Ron Hunter, May 12, 2005
  11. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I don't know that companies really evaluate those factors, they usually
    just see the bottom line. That is what comes of letting accountants run
    Ron Hunter, May 12, 2005
  12. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    No, of course they don't, but then at that point, they control their own
    salaries.. Hiring the fox to guard the hen house is always a lousy
    idea. But there is NO question that companies move manufacturing out of
    the US because labor costs are too high here.
    Look at the Kodak statement:
    Made in China (where labor is CHEAP, and safety, and worker treatement
    is poor).
    Designed in Japan, where so much electronic design expertise resides,
    and where photography is virtually a national obsession.
    To Kodak Specifications. WE seem to plan, and do market research, and
    guide the form, and nature, of the product for execution by others.
    Ron Hunter, May 12, 2005
  13. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Had Kodak not taken 'reorganization' charges from the bottom line, they
    would made a profit (about 350 million). These are mostly one-time
    charges, and can lead to increased profits at the next annual report.
    If their sales of digital cameras continue to be strong, then they
    should return to profitability in 2005.
    Ron Hunter, May 13, 2005
  14. Allodoxaphobia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Probably because a LOT of medical imaging is mostly digital these days.
    Ron Hunter, May 13, 2005
  15. No they don't, but that's likely a small portion of the final cost of
    goods. Probably a larger factor is that the American worker is
    unwilling to pay what goods cost when they are produced by other
    American workers. People mostly buy stuff at the lowest price
    available, even if it's worse quality, even if it's made in China.
    Look at the popularity of "dollar stores" where (as far as I can tell)
    everything they sell is truly junk quality.

    I do it too. I'll buy a Chinese micrometer for $20 because it works,
    and it's accurate, even if it doesn't look and feel as good as the
    Starrett or Mitutoyo that costs 4-8 times as much, or even the Polish
    one that costs 2 times as much.

    This is likely to equalize somewhat over time, as Chinese workers'
    standard of living rises, and the Chinese currency rises, while our own
    standard of living drops.

    Dave Martindale, May 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.