PDA

View Full Version : Hand Antonio Perez a pink slip



Pages : 1 [2] 3

falotico
09-16-2012, 02:21 PM
Kodak's assets are being undervalued, largely because the popular culture has fallen in love with all things digital. Witness the swoon over Apple products and the respect shown to Bill Gates. But what they've done is very much the same as Kodak's accomplishments: they have developed a huge bank of technological inventions which support the production of new, high quality consumer products. In the popular mind Kodak is viewed as the "telegraph" to digital photography's new-fangled "telephone". So the powers that be consign chemical imaging to the ash heap of history. But this is only because no one sees the chemistry involved in producing a digital image. Digital cameras are just glorified Autochromes which use a silicon light sensor instead of a silver emulsion. The photo-lithography used to produce both the screen that captures the image and the screen which displays it is well within the skill of an old school photo engineer; it is just a paradigm shift to think in terms of electrons moving through circuits, rather than electrons being transferred to molecules and producing oxidation products.

Prof_Pixel
09-16-2012, 02:37 PM
Consumers don't get hung up on the technologies used.

When I was making imaging technology presentations for Kodak (in the late '80s and early '90s) I used to tell people, "technology becomes a success when it becomes transparent to the user. You don't how to know how an automobile engine works to drive a car."

Some time around 2000, the technology became transparent and consumers started going digital for the CONVENIENCE and RESULTS, and NOT for the technology.

michaelbsc
09-16-2012, 02:46 PM
My vote is for PE to take the job.

What? We're going to drug PE and trick him? I didn't think we were that cruel.

Ken Nadvornick
09-16-2012, 03:40 PM
Some time around 2000, the technology became transparent and consumers started going digital for the CONVENIENCE and RESULTS, and NOT for the technology.

Let's be clear here. For the marketing-driven perception of convenience and results.

Marketing is like religion. If done correctly, the subject ends up believing in the truth of what they are told without ever questioning, or having any proof of, it's validity. By definition that's what faith is. Belief without proof.

They were told digital was easier and better by people who wanted to sell them that perception. The vehicle of those perceptions was irrelevant. This time around it just happened to be digital cameras. In years past it was microwave ovens because fire had become obsolete. So it's no surprise that then became the commonly quoted wisdom. And camera-puchasing pattern.

If the marketers had told them that colored pencils and sketchpads were the wave of the future, that their core inner self-validations rested on them making pictures using this new analog technology, then we'd be overrun by hipsters sitting on park benchs sketching the ducks on the pond. And being convinced to replace their colored pencils with new and improved upgrades every other day.

One of the benchmarks of a life well-lived is to finally reach the point of not getting fooled over and over and over, again...

Ken

Photo Engineer
09-16-2012, 03:58 PM
What? We're going to drug PE and trick him? I didn't think we were that cruel.

I wondered why my coffee tasted funny. It made me dizzy too, so I dumped it. Good thing! Thanks Michael for the warning. I'll be more alert.

Ask Fred if he wants the job.

PE

Prof_Pixel
09-16-2012, 04:58 PM
Let's be clear here. For the marketing-driven perception of convenience and results.

Sorry, but the convenience and results in going to dcams are what drove the large scale consumers switch, NOT marketing-driven perception of convenience and results. The results and convenience are REAL. Particularly the IMMEDIACY part of 'convenience'. I spent 7 years working on Kodak's instant system; a lot of that time involved looking at customer surveys and customer feedback. The biggest item that drove instant sales (both Kodak and Polaroid) was IMMEDIACY; the ability to share the images almost instantly. I've spent a lot of time looking at photos coming out of photofinishing processors, and it was quite common to see a roll of film that had pictures from 2 (or more) different year's Christmasses on it. Instant, and now digital, give CONSUMERS immediacy that film doesn't offer (even with minilabs) and that's what sells!

I recognize that the above comments don't apply to the members of this forum, who, first and formost, care about the imaging technology.



To put my comment about convenience and results in an APUG approved context: George Eastman's 'You push the button, we do the rest' cameras made the underlying silver halide process completely transparent to the user, giving the user convenience and results.

lxdude
09-16-2012, 10:28 PM
I really don't think Perez should be handed a pink slip.

He should find out he's been fired through the news, followed by a call telling him not to come in and that his personal stuff will be boxed and sent to him.

lxdude
09-16-2012, 10:58 PM
I got disgusted with the guy when I found out he was was taking vacations on the company jet, paid for by the company, at a time when people were being laid off by the thousands. When I read that he wants a bonus for taking Kodak through bankruptcy, I was appalled.

If I were an investor, I'd expect him to feel a sense of responsibility for what was happening and show some leadership by giving up his perks, skipping vacation to be there in such difficult times, and not expect to be paid for failure. I would have no faith in him any more, based on his behavior. It is not the behavior of a leader. It is an example of the increasingly common CEO-think: I've gotta get mine, regardless.

Bonuses are supposed to be incentives and rewards. Retention bonuses make sense for lower management who are not to blame for what has happened, but whose abilities are needed. Reward bonuses are tied to financial performance, so he should be getting his pay docked if anything.

Diapositivo
09-17-2012, 06:41 AM
Underlined of mine.


The biggest item that drove instant sales (both Kodak and Polaroid) was IMMEDIACY; the ability to share the images almost instantly. I've spent a lot of time looking at photos coming out of photofinishing processors, and it was quite common to see a roll of film that had pictures from 2 (or more) different year's Christmasses on it.

It also gave them privacy.

According to someone, the possibility to take home nude or even homemade porn photography was one of the drivers of the Polaroid success.
You couldn't do that with pictures you had to bring to the shop and get them back. I bet they were Christmases...

There are a lot of "private" images on hard disks I bet all over the world (especially the more puritan countries).

I have the impression this thing is overlooked, undertalked, but it could just have been an enormous driver in the advent of digital. The fact that you don't have to show your pictures to your shopkeeper (and hence to the entire district) is just huge. It's not just nude or porn, is anything private in nature (like your child's poo to send to your brothers, mentioned in another thread, or children nudity, or whatever else).

Thomas Bertilsson
09-17-2012, 07:01 AM
I got disgusted with the guy when I found out he was was taking vacations on the company jet, paid for by the company, at a time when people were being laid off by the thousands. When I read that he wants a bonus for taking Kodak through bankruptcy, I was appalled.

If I were an investor, I'd expect him to feel a sense of responsibility for what was happening and show some leadership by giving up his perks, skipping vacation to be there in such difficult times, and not expect to be paid for failure. I would have no faith in him any more, based on his behavior. It is not the behavior of a leader. It is an example of the increasingly common CEO-think: I've gotta get mine, regardless.

Bonuses are supposed to be incentives and rewards. Retention bonuses make sense for lower management who are not to blame for what has happened, but whose abilities are needed. Reward bonuses are tied to financial performance, so he should be getting his pay docked if anything.

Amen brother. I continue to use their products because of my sympathy for the guys and gals that make the stuff, hoping that my small contribution will help them somehow. If it ends up going into Perez' pockets I will stop and go all Ilford instead. What an a$$ he is.

Photo Engineer
09-17-2012, 09:35 AM
Underlined of mine.



It also gave them privacy.

According to someone, the possibility to take home nude or even homemade porn photography was one of the drivers of the Polaroid success.
You couldn't do that with pictures you had to bring to the shop and get them back. I bet they were Christmases...

There are a lot of "private" images on hard disks I bet all over the world (especially the more puritan countries).

I have the impression this thing is overlooked, undertalked, but it could just have been an enormous driver in the advent of digital. The fact that you don't have to show your pictures to your shopkeeper (and hence to the entire district) is just huge. It's not just nude or porn, is anything private in nature (like your child's poo to send to your brothers, mentioned in another thread, or children nudity, or whatever else).

I worked my way through college in a photofinishing lab. You would be surprised at the number of pictures of nudes and outright porn that were sent in. Law prevented us from sending them to the customer, so the pictures were destroyed. Law also did not allow us to report them due to privacy concerns. That latter has exceptions for the safety of individuals.

The instant and digital era has only increased this type of thing.

PE

lxdude
09-17-2012, 09:41 AM
I worked my way through college in a photofinishing lab. You would be surprised at the number of pictures of nudes and outright porn that were sent in. Law prevented us from sending them to the customer, so the pictures were destroyed.


Of course they were (wink, nudge)

MDR
09-17-2012, 09:47 AM
Excuse me but why was it forbidden/unlawful to send nudes or porn. Did you destroy the negs as well or only the prints?
Forbidden to give them to the costumers and forbidden to inform the authorities sounds like an idiotic law to say the least.

Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.

Dominik

kb3lms
09-17-2012, 10:00 AM
Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.

Along these lines, I have always wondered how a digital image stands up in court. You would think law enforcement would be huge users of film. It takes a pretty good craftsman to doctor a film image without leaving some, possibly very minute, detectable trace of the doctoring. But digital is just a computer file which can readily be hacked by those skilled in the art.

Roger Cole
09-17-2012, 10:16 AM
Excuse me but why was it forbidden/unlawful to send nudes or porn. Did you destroy the negs as well or only the prints?
Forbidden to give them to the costumers and forbidden to inform the authorities sounds like an idiotic law to say the least.

Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.

Dominik

You don't list where you are but I'm guessing it's not in the US. We've long ago stopped being surprised by idiotic laws.

The time frame for PE being in college would have been, what PE, the 60s maybe? Earlier? People of all ages in some countries and even younger Americans would be amazed at some of the puritanical laws we had back then.

MDR
09-17-2012, 10:41 AM
Roger Idiotic laws are not restricted to the US. We have a fair share of them in Austria as well. :)

Dominik

Roger Cole
09-17-2012, 10:46 AM
Roger Idiotic laws are not restricted to the US. We have a fair share of them in Austria as well. :)

Dominik

Oh I'm sure. I've aware of various ones throughout the world. But the US does seem to rate high on the prudishness scale among western industrialized countries. Seems countries have different areas of specialization when it comes to idiocy!

Photo Engineer
09-17-2012, 11:01 AM
Geez, I'm sorry I mentioned it.

Ok, it was in the mid to late 50s. I was a teen, and I was a printer among other things. I saw the negatives, but not the prints. My boss told me that he could not let me see the prints, and he took the prints and negatives. IDK what happened to them, but I never saw them accumulate beyond a few which would represent a weeks worth of prints.

The law said that they could not be returned to the customer. The law said that for privacy purposes, the authorities were not to be informed, and it was later changed to have an exception for child porn.

Now, the problem is that it is difficult to define porn. Is a nude porn? Well, IMHO it is not. But, we could not sent out nude pix. Of course, in that day and age, there was little beyond nude pix and I never heard of child porn.

So, there you have more information. Please don't ask more. I was about 18 at that time. I hardly remember the details.

PE

MFstooges
09-17-2012, 11:10 PM
I just can't imagine my self being Perez, with glamorous title yet no result to be proud of. He should join Trump's apprentice show.

Ken Nadvornick
09-18-2012, 01:01 AM
Sorry, but the convenience and results in going to dcams are what drove the large scale consumers switch, NOT marketing-driven perception of convenience and results. The results and convenience are REAL. Particularly the IMMEDIACY part of 'convenience'. I spent 7 years working on Kodak's instant system; a lot of that time involved looking at customer surveys and customer feedback. The biggest item that drove instant sales (both Kodak and Polaroid) was IMMEDIACY; the ability to share the images almost instantly. I've spent a lot of time looking at photos coming out of photofinishing processors, and it was quite common to see a roll of film that had pictures from 2 (or more) different year's Christmasses on it. Instant, and now digital, give CONSUMERS immediacy that film doesn't offer (even with minilabs) and that's what sells!

I recognize that the above comments don't apply to the members of this forum, who, first and formost, care about the imaging technology.



To put my comment about convenience and results in an APUG approved context: George Eastman's 'You push the button, we do the rest' cameras made the underlying silver halide process completely transparent to the user, giving the user convenience and results.

Exactly. Mr. Eastman created a better (photographic) mouse trap, then went out and created among the general public a perception via marketing that it was more convenient and produced results at least as good as those pesky user-processed glass plates. And a new industry was born.

You see, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the proclivity of the market to demand greater convenience with results as good or better than earlier versions. My point was that the higher one climbs on the technological product curve, the more complex those products actually become. And the buying public must be convinced of the exact opposite. That they are simpler and easier to use (i.e., more convenient). This requires the establishment of more and more marketing-driven perceptions to accomplish. And, generally speaking, higher and higher product reliability to maintain those perceptions.

You say you spent seven years wrestling with the issue of what the public said it wanted in a photographic technology. Well, I've been doing exactly the same thing with software technology for over a quarter of a century. Trying to give the marketers something that they can convince the customers is a sufficient upgrade in convenience and results that those customers will part with their hard-earned money. But they have to be convinced first.

The appearance of greater convenience is often just a shell game. The creators of a new technology will quietly substitute a set of new problems that simply replace the old familiar ones. Because the user is unfamiliar with the new technology, those new problems go unrecognized for a while. But the old familiar ones stand right out in their absence. So the new must be more convenient than the old, right?

Is a word processor more convenient than a typewriter? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Have you ever tried to open a newer formatted file type with an older version? Never had that problem with real paper. All you had to do to decode it was to look at it.

Is a digital camera more convenient than a film camera? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Have you ever lost all of your photos to a hard disk crash? I know someone who did. In an instant, all of the baby pictures, gone forever. Because the new technology simply gave her a new set of problems that replaced the old familiar ones. Got to see the photos almost immediately. Didn't have to buy film over and over. But DID have to buy a backup hard disk, and didn't recognize that critical new problem in time.

My argument is that on balance digital camera technology is no more or less "convenient", and overall produces no more or less better "results", than film camera technology. The only meaningful difference is in the set of technology problems which must be addressed by the user. And that the paradigm shift from film to digital was primarily driven by the availability of a new technology that could be readily adapted and sold into a market that always craves more convenience and better results in everything.

Digital cameras for the masses were not created to satisfy an unmet photographic demand. Everyone was already perfectly satisfied with their film cameras, because they knew nothing else. Digital camera technology came out of basic research, which was then adapted into products that could be marketed as better than film cameras, thus creating a new market where satisfied film camera owners could be convinced to part with their hard-earned money for replacement digital cameras.

In other words, the cart was being pulled along by the donkey. The donkey was not pushing the cart from behind.

Ken