KODAK firmly wedged in the camera toilet

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by RichA, Oct 12, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    So their idea of success is to continue to lose money rebranding dog-
    s--- Sanyo P&Ss. Losers.

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...ch_as_digital_picture_frames_news_149248.html


    Digital SLR cameras are not worth making, says Kodak; Firm continues
    to focus on mass market compacts and post-capture products such as
    digital picture frames

    Friday 12th October 2007
    Chris Cheesman

    Kodak will not rule out future entry into the consumer digital SLR
    arena. But the company admits that it has so far stayed out of this
    market because it does not make the lenses necessary to make enough
    profit.

    Eastman Kodak vice president John O'Grady told Amateur Photographer
    (AP) that the firm thought long and hard about making a consumer DSLR
    but explained that it is in a different position to companies such as
    Nikon and Canon which make their own lenses.

    In an interview with AP, Kodak's marketing director for Digital
    Capture and Devices, Philip H Scott, added: 'The decision to stay out
    of the digital SLR market is primarily driven by a business model that
    doesn't necessarily lend itself to a company that's not going to be in
    the glass, lens part of the business. All the profits... are in the lens
    part of the business.'

    Asked whether Kodak will ever enter the consumer DSLR market Scott
    replied: 'I would never say 'never'. Things change. We can say right
    now there are no current plans.'

    Scott stressed that Kodak is focusing on the 'post-capture' side of
    the photography business, making products such as the newly launched
    HD camera dock, printers and wireless pictures frames - now capable of
    receiving messages.

    However, he insisted that Kodak is not neglecting picture taking - the
    business for which it became famous - telling us that digital compact
    cameras currently account for a quarter of the company's business, in
    terms of revenue.

    'We are going to continue to participate in the bridge products that
    get you right up to the level of a digital SLR - sometimes giving you
    all the features and more in a smaller, [more] compact body than an
    SLR gives you, at consumer price points.'

    He said Kodak is concentrating on making 'mass consumer' cameras which
    it can sell for between 99-299 Euros.

    Speaking at an earlier Kodak business strategy presentation - in
    Barcelona, Spain - Scott said: 'You shouldn't have to be a photo
    technician to take great pictures.'

    According to Kodak's research, more than 70% of pictures taken with a
    digital SLR are captured using the 'auto' exposure mode.
     
    RichA, Oct 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    flambe Guest

    Kodak has not marketed a high end consumer camera since the Retina reflex
    was discontinued in the mid 1960s. This was a very interesting German made
    beast and I would love to own a working sample with lenses. Kodak also
    marketed several high quality rangefinder cameras in the 1950s.
    Kodak is continuing with its mass market model for camera sales that it has
    pursued since the company was founded.
    The performance of digital Kodaks with regard to their competitors is very
    comparable and Kodaks are aggressively priced. However Kodak reliability and
    service are somewhat lacking, suggesting that Kodak views digital P&S
    cameras as disposable as Instamatics. Consumers have higher expectations
    with regard to digital camera reliability and longevity.
    It is unfortunate that the Kodak corporate mind set/culture cannot focus on
    camera quality after all those decades of selling high volume crap cameras.
    If Kodak could apply the quality standards they have for film manufacturing
    to cameras regardless of which Asian factory the manufacturing is outsourced
    to . . .
     
    flambe, Oct 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    Kodak discontinued its DSLRs over two years ago - according IDC in
    their year of existance they garnered a staggering 0.5% market share.

    And YOUR idea of success is pouring lots of money into developing new
    products and re-entering segment of the market where they know they
    can't compete effectively? Tosser.



    TR
     
    TRoss, Oct 13, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    This could be considered their last high-end camera:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakslrc/
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You aren't capable of thinking outside narrow boundaries, are you?
    I've noticed that. Pentax, Nikon and Olympus have "saved" themselves
    by developing relatively low cost DSLRs. Kodak should have gone this
    route, AND kept their pro DSLR line going. They could have come out
    with a FF sub-$3000 DSLR at the same time Canon released theirs. They
    didn't want to spend the money to develop a lens line. As for them
    knowinig anything, I'd question that given their track record over the
    last decade.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2007
    #5
  6. You could consider making an offer on this set:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270066569233

    An Instamatic Reflex Camera and a 45mm or 50mm normal lens can
    be had for less than $50, and for the next year or so you'll
    be able to buy fresh 126 film. However, figuring out a
    substitute for the PX825 mercury batteries is a real challenge.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 13, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : It is unfortunate that the Kodak corporate mind set/culture cannot focus on
    : camera quality after all those decades of selling high volume crap cameras.
    : If Kodak could apply the quality standards they have for film manufacturing
    : to cameras regardless of which Asian factory the manufacturing is outsourced
    : to . . .

    Yeah, but your argument provides its own rebuttal. In the film days Kodak made
    its money selling film; cameras were incidental. But digital photography has
    no equivalent to film, which is why Kodak now flounders around wondering what
    business it's in.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 13, 2007
    #7
  8. The Retina Reflex was interesting all right, but kludgy. Since like other
    Retinas it used a between-the-lens shutter, only the front component of the
    lens was interchangeable. The range of available focal lengths was very
    limited, and the whole system seemed overcomplicated compared to
    conventional SLRs with focal-plane shutters.
    Kodak of Germany did, yes. My first serious 35 was a Retina IIa, in 1952.
    Very nice.

    The American-made Kodak Signet rangefinder 35 of that time was a fairly
    cheesy affair, the body apparently made of stamped sheet metal. They made a
    rangefinder 120 camera of much better quality.

    Kodak did make a really high-quality rangefinder 35 in the 1930s, the Ektra.
    It sold for $300 (at that time, about half the price of a new car) and
    reportedly Kodak lost $700 on every one they sold. The Ektra was designed to
    be a prestige product, and show that Kodak could make a camera the
    equivalent of a Leica or Contax if they really wanted to. It was not a
    success.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Oct 13, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    You aren't capable of thinking at all, are you? Narrow boundries, wide
    boundries, no boudries ... you're still a maroon.
    Hmmmm, you're now advocating the development and manufacture of low
    cost (that'll be made of PLASTIC) DSLRs?

    Pentax, Nikon and Olympus are camera companies, *and* they manufacture
    their lenses. And it's a huge stretch to claim Pentax and Olympus were
    "saved" by its DSLRs - Canon sells more DSLRs in a QUARTER than Pentax
    and Olympus combined.

    Kodak is a film manufacturer, and its cameras were primarily vehicles
    for film. Remember, Kodak wasn't interested in producing great
    cameras, it was interested in putting a camera in every hand.
    Or Kodak could have gone the same route as Fujifilm, another film
    manufacturer, and simply rebadged another company's body.

    Or it could have gone the same route as Agfa and stayed out
    altogether.
    Kodak had TWO full-frame DSLRs, numbnuts. While they weren't priced
    below $3000, they were about $2000 (or 40%) less expensive than the
    Canons at the time.

    The DCS-14N, based on a Nikon body and lens-mount, was released in
    2003, about the same time as the 1Ds. The DCS Pro SLR/c, based on a
    Sigma body with a Canon lens-mount, was released in 2004, about the
    same time as the 1D II.
    Or they could focus their attention and resources on developing
    sensors and image processor technology, and play in an arena where
    they can compete. Maybe Kodak knows it does not have to produce a
    camera in order to have its sensor in one.


    TR
     
    TRoss, Oct 13, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    If it will save them.
    Cheap DSLRs put them both in the black financially, after years in the
    red.
    That was fine when you made $3.00 on every X-15 instamatic sold. Not
    when you lost $5.00 on every cheap P&S digital sold.
    They could have made their own. But they've been doing it wrong since
    the Polaroid debacle.
    Agfa. Oh yeah. Now whatever happened to them?
    They didn't spend enough resources or money on them. They gave the FF
    market in total to Canon. They declined moving forward with any kind
    of DSLR, while the other players were saving themselves with them.
    "How can Kodak sell a DSLR?" Same way Sony and Samsung are doing it.
    By TRYING, or by strategic association, which they may not have been
    able to do, given their narrow business focus.
    Yes, selling dirt-cheap, made in China cmos sensors to makers of
    camera phones. Big market, LOW profit, no prestige as a "camera
    maker."

    Film is DEAD, Kodak probably new that in the early 1990s.
    The facts speak for themselves. They have a workforce now that is
    about 1/8th of its size at its peak. They didn't diversify, they
    didn't adapt.
    How's Canon doing?

    And down and down Kodak goes....

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071013.OLYKODAK13/TPStory/Sports

    Kodak hits delete button

    JAMES CHRISTIE

    October 13, 2007

    Advancing technology is taking one of the Olympic movement's biggest
    players out of the Games.

    Eastman Kodak Co., which has been part of the International Olympic
    Committee's lucrative worldwide sponsorship program since 1986, will
    drop out as the official film and imaging sponsor after the Beijing
    Olympics next year.

    The company, based in Rochester, N.Y., is getting out of film products
    and moving into the digital world, and with that comes a new marketing
    approach, the company said in a statement yesterday.

    Kodak paid between $55-million and $65-million (all currency U.S.) for
    the 2004-08 Olympiad to maintain its official sponsor status and
    exclusivity in the product category. Official sponsors in the Olympic
    Partner program have worldwide exclusivity to market themselves with
    associations to the Games and the five-ring logo. There are a dozen
    corporate giants signed up to associate themselves with the Beijing
    Games, including Coca-Cola, Visa, Samsung and McDonald's.
     
    RichA, Oct 14, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    rjn Guest

    And processing, and print media.
    Not quite.
    We have consumables:
    - coated printing paper (a business Kodak is in)
    - ink/toner (a business Kodak is in)
    - optical archiving media (Kodak was in, now out,
    other than PictureCD - PhotoCD is gone)
    Infrequents:
    - sensors (a business Kodak is in)
    - flash cards (Kodak-branded are available)
    - rechargeable batteries (Kodak-branded are available)
    - random other accessories (Kodak-branded are available)
    I'd agree that it's not clear Kodak can have the same
    scale of enterprise in the digital age.

    I'd also agree the DSLR would not be a major business for them.
    Entirely apart from the issues of volume and the future of DSLR,
    many buyers distrust Kodak at and above the prosumer level,
    because they tend to abandon the market periodically.

    And not making SLR lenses is a challenge.
     
    rjn, Oct 14, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    Rander, if you had bothered to read the financial statements *before*
    you start making up these "facts" you would not appear so foolish.

    Fact is, Pentax Imaging System (the group responsible for cameras,
    lenses, binoculars, and telescopes) showed an operating income LOSS in
    last two business years.

    Fact is, the largest contributor of operating income at Pentax and
    Olympus are its medical business group.

    What does the "Polaroid debacle" have to do with digital cameras?
    Kodak hasn't made an instamatic camera (or film for it) since the
    mid-80s. I once had a TrimPrint - a ugly, beast of a camera.

    So if Kodak's been doing it wrong for the last 20+ years, maybe it's a
    good idea to exit the camera market.

    As far as I know Agfa is doing just fine. The consumer imaging
    business group was sold to a group of investors in 2004 and started
    operating under AgfaPhoto.

    AgfaPhoto filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005. Agfa film and film
    cameras are produced and distributed by Lupus Imaging. Agfa branded
    digital cameras are being manufactured by Plawa.

    When you started this little diatribe you called for Kodak to develop
    a FF DSLR - oblivious to the FACT that Kodak developed two of the
    first FF DSLRs on the market.

    And now that you're aware of this tiny little fact, you change your
    story and claim the reason the DCS cameras failed is because Kodak
    didn't spend enough on them?

    Please, make up your mind....

    Kodak never had the market to GIVE. There is no way, NO WAY, Kodak
    could compete against Canon in the FF market. This is the professional
    market, numbnuts, and I really think you'd be hard-pressed to find a
    professional photographer willing to shoot a Kodak camera.

    Since you really haven't been paying attention, Rander, Sony *bought*
    Konica Minolta's DSLR unit. Last year Sony held a 6.2% market share
    and sold slightly more DSLRs than Olympus (or roughly the same number
    Canon sells in 1.5 months).

    Samsung's DSLR, the GX-10, is a rebadged Pentax K10D. (Last year
    Pentax sold less DSLRs than Olympus and Sony.

    The simple fact is, nearly 80% of the DSLRs sold are either Canon or
    Nikon. Sony, Olympus and Pentax are slugging it out for the remaining
    20%, and I would not be surprised if their combined share of the
    market shrank at the end of the year.
    Who would be willing to enter a "strategic association" with Kodak? I
    doubt Sony, Olympus or Pentax would be willing to dilute their brand,
    and its unlikely they would gain anything from Kodak.

    Does Chinon have the capacity or ability to produce an SLR?


    TR
     
    TRoss, Oct 15, 2007
    #12
  13. Kodak did buy the imaging sensor division of National Semiconductor
    (excluding Foveon). The Leica M8 uses a Kodak sensor.
     
    Not Disclosed, Oct 15, 2007
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They likely failed for the reasons you stated, they had a body from
    Nikon and lenses from Canon and Nikon, what was left to make money on
    for them? The sensors. They could have developed their own camera,
    they didn't. Why is it EVERY company today never thinks of creation
    they only do creation by aquisition?
    They are the ONLY ones who bought them. Where have you been living?
    According to what I've heard, they are number # 3. Could be 1.5
    months of Canon sales are pretty decent.
    Could be because they don't have access to the U.S. market with their
    products, could be because they
    are not "respected" as higher-end company, despite the fact they've
    taken a large share of the display market from Sony.
    They've made lenses for other companies for decades.
     
    RichA, Oct 15, 2007
    #14
  15. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    That is what Kodak has always done. They made paper and film and
    photography supplies and inexpensive consumer cameras. They made a few
    attempts at marketing an SLR during their film days and a few other
    attempts at a high end camera, but they have never been enthusiastic
    about these products and neither have consumers.

    You don't have to make a DSLR to be a camera company and Kodak
    demonstrates that quite well.

    That said, there are signs of severe problems in Kodak's marketing
    department. Most analysts are highly disturbed at Kodak's announcement
    that they will not sponsor any Olympics after Beijing. Either this is
    the worst marketing move of all time or it is brilliant. There is no
    question that it is a high risk strategy.
     
    C J Campbell, Oct 15, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    Did they give any indication as to why?
     
    Pboud, Oct 15, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I think that is the best summation of their position.
     
    RichA, Oct 15, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    TRoss Guest

    With WHAT??!! The film market is in a death spiral. Kodak has been
    bleeding for at least the past two years. Its workforce is less than
    half what it was three years ago.

    1. It costs less to buy a company than it does to create one.
    2. Time-to-market is reduced.
    3. You inherit a customer base instead of having to create one.
    4. You assume another company's experience and personnel.
    5. You eliminate or nullify a competitor.
    6. You work at a level addlepates like Rander will never comprehend.
    (But who're you gonna brag to about that!)
    There weren't ENOUGH professional photographers buying them. Please
    pay attention, Rander. Kodak had 0.5% market share in 2005. That's
    roughly 18,000 units (1% of Canon's DSLR sales).

    I am stranded on a small island with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. We
    are the only people on the island. According to Forbes, I'm the third
    richest man on the island.

    Quit making up your "facts", Rander. Samsung is not a 2nd or 3rd tier
    company. They are active players in several markets, and its Q3
    figures were impressive.

    As for cameras, Samsung did quite well with digicams last year. Market
    share increased from 4% to 7.8%; putting it in 5th place overall, and
    ahead of Nikon. And they did it without a strong presence (or presence
    at all) in the DSLR arena.
    And they've been a fully-owned subsidiary of Kodak Japan since 2004.


    TR
     
    TRoss, Oct 16, 2007
    #18
  19.  
    Neil Harrington, Oct 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Well, that and those obnoxious flash cubes (or sticks of 10 for those 110
    cameras).
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 17, 2007
    #20
    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.