kodak lays off 15000 people

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Hugo Drax, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    Looks like kodak is preparing to move over to digital in its commercial
    imaging department. I would not be surprised if all commercial imaging moves
    digital and the only thing left is paper to sell and digital imaging
    equipment.
     
    Hugo Drax, Jan 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hugo Drax

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Rather myopic viewpoint. As long as there is profit in film, it will be
    produced and sold . . . and that should be a very long time to continue.
    Technology has nothing to do with this, merely profits. If you choose to be
    narrow minded in this regard, then I hope you are happy with your views.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Jan 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hugo Drax

    Ponch Guest

    Its not a view its a fact, film will go the way of the buggywhip and Kodak
    knows this and is preparing for its eventual demise by planning ahead and
    developing its digital lines across the board, film is profitable now but in
    20 years who knows. Myopic is being the last one still selling buggywhips.
    Ask the typesetters in the 1970s regarding computers, you would have had the
    same response you just gave me.
     
    Ponch, Jan 22, 2004
    #3
  4. So, digital will kill film? The way that photography killed
    painting and sculpture? Oh, wait, there is an art supply
    store or two right here in my home town. You can even buy
    paints and brushes and canvas and watercolor paper and. . .

    Film and processing may become more difficult to find and,
    certainly, the one-hour places that are staffed with pimply-
    faced jerks who ruin one of every three rolls will go away.
    However, I suspect (hope, since I can't afford to buy a whole,
    new system and don't want to turn my 16mm fisheye into
    something that has the field of view of a 24mm wide angle with
    terrible barrel distortion) that film will be with us for
    quite a while. Color was supposed to cause the demise of
    black-and white. 35mm was supposed to cause the demise of
    large-format, but neither of these things have happened.

    I feel sorry for people who want others' pleasure destroyed in
    order to validate their own purchase of the latest
    technological gee-gaw.
     
    Woodard R. Springstube, Jan 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Hugo Drax

    The Wogster Guest

    What is film, it's a chemical coating on plastic, as long as the
    chemicals to make and process film exist, then film will exist, to some
    degree. In 100 years when you have cameras that are 120 years old,
    there will still be film.

    W
     
    The Wogster, Jan 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    No, Digital Photography will replace film just like Computers replaced the
    Abacus. You are complaining about todays shortcomings regarding digital
    photography which is still in its infancy. Painting,Sculpture,photography
    are three different art medias they compliment eachother. Film will serve no
    purpose in the future when a digital sensor will allow you to do what you do
    which is compose and capture a picture.

    What does any of this have to do with validating any purchase of gew-gaws
    and toyes?
     
    Hugo Drax, Jan 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    Yes it will still exist in the distant future as a specialty novelty just
    like that one guy who still takes pictures using the Daguerre method. You
    dont see Kodak selling Daguerre plates do you? Dont expect Kodak,fuji etc..
    to continue selling film commercialy though
     
    Hugo Drax, Jan 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Hugo Drax

    Mike Elek Guest

    Not everyone has the ability to shell out $1,000 or even $100 for a digital
    camera. And then another $500 for a bargain basement computer plus $850 for
    Photoshop plus $200 for a printer plus $65 every time you need to replace
    ink jets plus $15 for CD blanks, etc., etc.

    Digital has no character. Unlike vinyl albums and videotape, which were/are
    flawed, film is not flawed.

    Film will exist, quite possibly as a much smaller market, but it will
    continue to exist.
     
    Mike Elek, Jan 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Actually, Kodak should lay off 14,976 people....:^)
     
    William Graham, Jan 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Hugo Drax

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The world is a much larger place than just North America, Europe, and Japan.
    Disposable one-time-use cameras are the highest volume film product, and likely
    to remain that way. If you think my view might be narrow, then consider that I
    think wireless imaging will largely displace direct digital cameras.

    There is a wealth of real information in the form of financial reports, actual
    market data, and usage. When less than 12% of direct digital camera users print
    anything, it is easy to understand that the main usage pattern is instant
    gratification. The ease of use is the least common denominator, making a phone
    with a camera built in far too simple to ignore. Same goes for disposable
    cameras, especially at such a low cost.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Jan 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Hugo Drax

    Jeremy Guest


    People in the Third World do not have the disposable income to buy luxury
    items--and disposable cameras (and film processing) are often luxury items
    for families that live in what we would consider poverty conditions.

    I don't see any real profit potential from disposable camera sales in third
    world countries, and I don't think that Kodak sees them either. People in
    those areas are likely to buy the cheapest disposable camera--probably made
    in Chine--if they bought one at all.

    Kodak is a technology company and their fortunes hang on their natural
    industrialized nation base. North America, the EU, and Austrailia/New
    Zealand, not Nigeria or Thailand.
     
    Jeremy, Jan 23, 2004
    #11
  12. Hugo Drax

    The Wogster Guest

    Actually it will, it's a long term human readable format, if you want to
    know how short term digital storage is, I have <10 year old 5.25" floppy
    disks that are unreadable simply because no computer has a 5.25" floppy
    drive installed. Think in 100 years someone who runs across a CD-ROM,
    full of stock photos will have any method to read it? How about a 100
    year old box full of negatives..... They may not have a direct method
    of reading it, but they will be able to figure it out. Will anyone
    remember what JPG or TIF mean?

    W
     
    The Wogster, Jan 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Hugo Drax

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Manufacturing is slowly moving into emerging markets. That boosts those "third
    world" local economies. There are places that are quite well developed in some
    regions, even while having large poverty areas. Take a trip to Brazil, or even
    Mexico, and you can see what I mean.
    So with Kodak getting involved in film production in China, which is an
    emerging economy, would you think that Kodak branded Chinese made disposable
    cameras are a possibility?
    Read into the market reports for Kodak, Fuji, or even AGFA. All three of them
    see potential in emerging markets, and consider many areas as under exploited.
    Not everyone outside of US, EU, Japan, AUS/NZ lives in mud houses with grass
    roofs. These places do not need to be like the US (was) in order to become
    markets for imported products.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Jan 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Hugo Drax

    ThomasH Guest

    Before you keep talking here, lets rather verify how reliable,
    i.e. worthy discussion is this particular message subject.
    We know about Kodak's strategy for digital, cut of dividend,
    usage of it for billions heavy R&D projects in digital imaging.

    Where have you seen this number of people to be laid off, dear
    Hugo? I just went through Lehman, Standard and Poor, Forbes etc.
    I found a vague information that the company is *planing to*
    reduce its work force "by 20 percent over the next 3 years."

    Do you claim that the 15000 are being laid off in addition to this
    announcement? If not, lets call your message "Kodak PLANS to lay
    off 15000 over the next 3 years."

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jan 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Hugo Drax

    Colyn Guest

    Colyn, Jan 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Hugo Drax

    Lisa Horton Guest

    The WSJ had an article on this subject. As I recall, they were planning
    on reducing headcount by about 15,000 or 20% (or was that 25%) over the
    next several years.

    I'm sure Kodak is aware of the way the winds are blowing.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Jan 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Hugo Drax

    T. P. Guest


    Unless Kodak does something radical to improve its range
    of digital cameras, it had better concentrate on film sales.
     
    T. P., Jan 24, 2004
    #17
  18. I am not at all shocked that Kodak is laying off a lot of
    people. In fact, even if digital had never been invented, I
    think that the same thing would be happening. I haven't shot
    any film from a yellow box for years. There is too much other
    good stuff out there.
     
    Woodard R. Springstube, Jan 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Hugo Drax

    Matt Clara Guest

    Ain't _that_ the f'in truth!
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Hugo Drax

    Colyn Guest

    Colyn, Jan 24, 2004
    #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.