Kodak-- No further longterm investment in film

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Gordon Moat, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Gordon Moat

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes
    I just bought a 4-pack of LIGHTBULBS (you know, the 75-watt kind) that were
    branded Polaroid!

    Are they trying to expand their core business?? :)
     
    Jeremy, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gordon Moat

    Joe Guest

    When you flick the switch they'll take 60 seconds to come on :)
     
    Joe, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    There are some Fuji "instant cameras" for sale at the place where I
    process most of my film. They've been on sale there for at least a
    year. The cameras are CAD$49.00 ... I forget the film price. I
    thought the process was not the Polaroid process but something
    different... I am still tempted to buy one for studio lighting setups,
    but the "digital" question still lingers...

    (And while we have your attention ... where's your C.V. shoot-in post!)

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
  4. Gordon Moat

    Gordon Moat Guest

    No shit? Now that is a different direction. They use to make Flash Bulbs, but
    this is really different.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 1, 2003
  5. Gordon Moat

    Gordon Moat Guest

    More likely, you have to peel it apart for it to come on. Another possibility is
    that it only works for 60 seconds . . . . ;-)

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 1, 2003
  6. MM just likes to argue, thus the willful misinterpretation of both of my
    comments.
     
    Skip Middleton, Oct 1, 2003
  7. Gordon Moat

    ThomasH Guest

    I just saw this message:

    http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-13.htm

    Kodak just cut its dividend to invest the money in a radical move
    toward securing market share in all areas of digital photography:
    consumer, commercial and health imaging.

    I read this article with interest as I share the skepticism of
    its author: They were pioneering the digital photo technology
    for quite a while without really preventing their fall in size
    and in importance. I will prepare a message with current stats
    about US camera sales: Kodak is the big loser in the battle for
    market shares. Olympus is the sustaining champ, Canon is the
    largest rate of growth winner.

    If I am correct, currently Fuji is 4-times in revenue size and
    in employee number compared to Kodak, and since Agfa focusses on
    commercial printing market rather, its up to these two remaining
    major players to divide the majority of the market in consumer/pro
    mass printing and related services, such as scanning, CD making etc.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 1, 2003
  8. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    This has been hashed already, the shareholders reacted and dumped,
    driving the stock down nearly 1/5. It has not recovered as of today
    (still 'round $21) even though the market has climbed following a sag.

    The sharholders are not impressed with the dividend cut. They are
    certainly not impressed with the wishy-washy "forecast" of the board.
    EK has been losing shareholder value in a near straight line since 97 or so.

    As film becomes less important, Kodak will become an "also ran" in the
    imaging marketplace. period.

    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
  9. Do you happen to remember RCA, Zenith, Magnavox, et. al.? The U.S. can't
    compete (or chooses not to compete) in consumer electronics. By the way,
    the only reason you might see those old brand names is because they have
    been licensed by off-shore manufacturers. Some day, perhaps a critical
    number of politicians and business leaders might realize that manufacturing
    is a significant wealth and national security producer and that no great
    nation can forsake it for an extended period of time and expect to continue
    to be a great nation. Information age be darned ... that's a myth! LOL
    Kodak!
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 1, 2003
  10. Gordon Moat

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Sad but probably true. I just moved from Rochester, where I had many
    friends who worked for Kodak. Several started looking for ways out quite
    some time ago. (For most, that meant leaving Rochester and that's what
    they've been doing.) The R&D move away from film and toward digital
    really started long ago (should have been much longer but that's Kodak
    for you). I think management has just been waiting for the right time to
    break the news to the public/shareholders. It's no coincidence that this
    announcement came a couple of months after Kodak admitted that digital
    is going to supersede film eventually. Both announcements were probably
    planned long ago.
     
    Mark Roberts, Oct 1, 2003
  11. Yes....As usual, you can blame the insatiable desire for money on the part
    of government for most of the problems in this world.....Especially rich
    people's money.....Their justification for stealing it is, "Just because
    it's there".
     
    William Graham, Oct 1, 2003
  12. Over the years, Kodak has gotten a reputation for producing "junk" instead
    of good equipment....Once a company gets this kind of reputation, it is very
    difficult to get out from under it. Kodak needs to come out with a line of
    good professional equipment, even if they have to have it built overseas for
    them, and market it in the US. Unless they do this, they will gradually go
    out of business......
     
    William Graham, Oct 2, 2003
  13. Gordon Moat

    JK Guest

    No, they both have around 70,000 employees. Fuji's sales are
    much higher than Kodak's though.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EK
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=fujiy
     
    JK, Oct 2, 2003
  14. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    one thing i have experienced that likely is common: my first digital, Ricoh,
    had no optical finder. this turns out to be a killer for outside work, even
    though the lcd screen has two power levels. great camera, otherwise, but if
    i paid full price when it was newly released, i would be totally pissed after
    just a few weeks (and that not counting the battery issue, this was before
    NiMH's got cheap). these early customers will not bite again, anytime soon,
    just mho, --Loren
     
    Loren Coe, Oct 2, 2003
  15. This has been talked about A LOT, and not just in photography circles.

    First of all, I must say that Kodak management is pretty dumb if they
    think they can sell inkjet printers and compete against Epson, Canon,
    HP, and Lexmark.

    Second, it's not at all clear that film will just disappear. I
    suspect there will be a very long period in which film and digital
    coexist, with film mostly used by low end shooters (like the point and
    shoot crowd). Big corporations aren't happy being in a non-growth,
    or, gasp! a negative-growth industry. So this is what Kodak's
    announcement is about.

    Also, film will likely never die as a hobbyist/fine art/enthusiast
    market, but there won't be enough sales to support a massive company
    like Kodak.

    Just like people never stopped buying oil paints, but that doesn't
    support a huge industrial multi-billion dollar conglomerate either.

    So screw Kodak, I'll be buying film from Fuji and Ilford.
     
    Leica like that, Oct 2, 2003
  16. I rather thought that the low end shooters (esp. if they also own a
    computer) preferred inexpensive digital cams.
     
    Michael Moore, Oct 2, 2003
  17. Gordon Moat

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    I think that you will see the price of photofinishing going up over time--as
    the number of photofinishing outlets begins to contract. You can bet that
    retailers won't waste valuable square footage on their selling floors for
    photofinishing and one-hour processing equipment if the demand for that
    service starts to drop.

    And a lot of consumers will just want to take lots of images, for viewing on
    their monitors and for emailing. Digital photography will be viewed as
    cheaper than buying film, loading the camera, shooting 24 images, unloading
    camera, filling out the photofinishing envelope, dropping film off at
    photofinisher, waiting for processing (or coming back 1 or more days later
    to pick it up) and paying for photofinishing and also purchasing another
    roll of film for the next round of use.

    It won't be long before virtually everyone has access to a computer. The
    mass movement to digital imaging (at least on the part of ordinary
    consumers) is virtually inevitable.

    We all knew that this was coming--it still is painful to have to face the
    fact that traditional film--and the ease and availability of inexpensive
    photofinishing services--are coming to an end. Enjoy it while it lasts--one
    day we're going to look back on this period as being film's golden days.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 2, 2003
  18. Gordon Moat

    ThomasH Guest

    I agree! People will shoot much more using digital cameras.

    Some will own good photo printers but I think that the main road toward
    a print picture will be still via local photofinishing store or outlet
    at any store chain. As I understand, here Kodak will hold its strong
    position and compete mainly with Fuji.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 3, 2003
  19. Gordon Moat

    JK Guest

    It is not really low cost digital cameras, but low cost prints from
    digital on photographic paper that is making digital cameras so
    popular now.
     
    JK, Oct 3, 2003
  20. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    considering the amount of floor space that I see today, i would not hold your
    breath.

    hmmm, a process that has existed for 50yrs, and _still_ is ubiquitous? why does
    everyone who buys a neat new toy think the world will change overnite?
    i am a relative newbie, wrt this ng, but an oldtimer wrt to film/print and
    my short take on this ng is that there are many who don't use Wal-mart, never
    have. ditto for Costco, Sam's, Kmart, Ekard, Walgreens, on on on and on...
    so i ask, why these nitwits seem to be carrying on like a quest is needed to
    _finally_ RID our ranks of those crummy low, low-end souls? my 2cents, --Loren
     
    Loren Coe, Oct 3, 2003
    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.