PDA

View Full Version : Emerging Kodak



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

kuparikettu
01-31-2013, 04:15 PM
While it's so nice to have so many threads about the bleak future of Kodak, maybe we could dedicate one thread to hopeful news on Kodak emerging from chapter 11.

I'll start: http://www.pr-inside.com/multi-touch-technology-using-new-transparent-r3570023.htm

So worry not, there will be coating happening in the future and while the machines churn out film for use in phones and pads and lcd screens, maybe once a year they might also run a batch of film for photography and cinema! ;)

batwister
01-31-2013, 04:27 PM
Sorry to put a downer on your thread, but this is a very different type of film. 'Conductive film coating' for 'touch panels and related applications'.
Nothing to do with the light sensitive emulsion we so enjoy.

AgX
01-31-2013, 04:46 PM
Another downer would be that this is not actually new technolgy. At least I don't see new technology in this.

Agfa has been coating film with PEDOT for years. Furthermore they make PEDOT, including as screen printing ink.
Kodak in contrast would do customized pattern coating. But this would just be job-coating (on their own base film) to my understanding.


EDIT:
Maybe the novelty lies in etching a full area coated film instead of screen printing it, to form that pattern.

pbromaghin
01-31-2013, 04:47 PM
Sorry to put a downer on your thread, but this is a very different type of film. 'Conductive film coating' for 'touch panels and related applications'.
Nothing to do with the light sensitive emulsion we so enjoy.

Ah, but if it uses the same machine, it keeps the lights on in between

kuparikettu
01-31-2013, 04:47 PM
Sorry to put a downer on your thread, but this is a very different type of film. 'Conductive film coating' for 'touch panels and related applications'.
Nothing to do with the light sensitive emulsion we so enjoy.

Nah, the main point wasn't so much whether or not this tech has anything to do with photographic film per se, but rather on the fact that Kodak is involved in some research and production of technologies which aren't too tightly connected to photography but to other large business areas instead. This is important, because we have seen that Fuji is nowadays a company which produces even makeup products (http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n111205.html). It's for the best of us if these giants find other revenue streams in addition to traditional film business because we do know that focusing purely on photography and downsizing won't be possible due to the large coating lines and the cost of manufacturing new smaller machines.

bobwysiwyg
01-31-2013, 05:32 PM
Not to be Mr. Negative [pun intended] but I doubt other profitable aspects of their business will be allowed to 'fund' photographic production. It's either profitable on its own or not.

kuparikettu
01-31-2013, 05:59 PM
Not to be Mr. Negative [pun intended] but I doubt other profitable aspects of their business will be allowed to 'fund' photographic production. It's either profitable on its own or not.

That would be the case if film production, makeup and electronic film products were totally unconnected. However, because they share some parts (chemicals, coating, production lines, distribution) producing other stuff that is wanted keeps the production lines running and thus makes the losses of having equipment unused smaller.

Thus it is like a factory producing wooden household items: if at some point there isn't as much demand for wooden stools, they might keep the production running at a smaller portion of stools being produced of the whole capacity but they can have the machines work on some other wooden articles as well. Stools are still profitable, but only doing wooden stools isn't -- widening the catalog is sometimes necessary.

Film is still very much profitable and large business, but only producing film is bad idea. Innovations should be used broadly (Btw, Harman does this too: http://www.harmantechnology.com/DotNetNuke/Technology/Antimicrobial/tabid/185/Default.aspx)

Athiril
01-31-2013, 06:41 PM
Not to be Mr. Negative [pun intended] but I doubt other profitable aspects of their business will be allowed to 'fund' photographic production. It's either profitable on its own or not.

I don't think this is true at all. The digital imaging and printer aspect of Kodak was sucking everything else dry for many years before it caught up with them.

IIRC they also shifted losses, costs and profits around to other areas.

Sal Santamaura
03-11-2013, 07:05 PM
Emerging with these results to "build on:"


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-posts-bigger-loss-sees-212818533.html

Hatchetman
03-11-2013, 07:55 PM
Emerging with these results to "build on:"


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-posts-bigger-loss-sees-212818533.html


Wow. it just keeps getting worse.

RattyMouse
03-11-2013, 08:04 PM
Kodak's losses are staggering. 400 million dollars and increasing. Sales are also down 24%. Really, how can this dinosaur keep on wheezing along? I guess I'll believe it when I see it, that they exit bankruptcy.

Darkroom317
03-11-2013, 11:22 PM
The stock is so cheap we should come together and buy a controlling interest in the company. :)

Pioneer
03-12-2013, 12:27 AM
Don't you know? That is the re-organization plan. Print and sell more stock...Oooops, sorry...that was Bernanke.

dances_w_clouds
03-12-2013, 02:26 AM
Why did they invent the digital camera and not market it ? Everyone else did.

iulian
03-12-2013, 08:20 AM
The stock is so cheap we should come together and buy a controlling interest in the company. :)

If you add all the liabilities, they should give us money just to buy it :)

This is what corporate arrogance looks like. It happened to Polaroid it (almost) happened to Apple, it happened to Silicon Graphics and it will happen to IBM and HP quite soon, I'm afraid.
Others will be more dedicated to the customer and grow, starting the cycle all over again.

I think it started with the useless film formats pushed onto the customers to sell more crappy cameras (just look up a list... 620 anyone?) culminating with the APS fiasco and the delay in marketing digital. Too many mistakes to survive. The fact that they were huge delayed the end, but the vision in Kodak is just a ECN product line.

Sorry for the rant, but I see design-by-commitee and marketing-by-commitee everyday. No one takes charge and imposes a vision, and when they do it's usually crap like expensive inkjet with cheap ink and nobody dares to contradict them.

Support the ones who care about us (Ilford, ADOX, maybe even Maco and Fuji) and let the dead rest already.

Regards,
Iulian

Brian C. Miller
03-15-2013, 10:44 AM
Businessweek: Kodak loss up 80 pct in 2012 as sales fall 20 pct (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-03-11/kodak-loss-up-80-pct-in-2012-as-sales-fall-20-pct), "The Rochester, N.Y., company said it lost $1.38 billion in 2012, 80 percent more than the loss of $764 million the year before."

Money, meet furnace.

MattKing
03-15-2013, 11:24 PM
However:

"The Rochester, N.Y., company said it lost $1.38 billion in 2012, 80 percent more than the loss of $764 million the year before. Excluding reorganization costs, the latest loss would have been $308 million, Kodak said."

So their reorganization costs were in excess of $1.07 billion.

Roger Cole
03-16-2013, 02:33 AM
And their loss excluding those costs was less than half the loss of 2011.

Still they are bleeding heavily if not quite gushing as badly as in 2011.

AgX
03-16-2013, 05:40 AM
I think it started with the useless film formats pushed onto the customers to sell more crappy cameras (just look up a list... 620 anyone?) culminating with the APS fiasco and the delay in marketing digital.

Kodak had been forerunner with types as 126, S-8 which really cranked up the markets worlwide.

APS had been a well designed system that had been outrun by digital technololgies just as the whole industry.

alanrockwood
03-16-2013, 10:43 AM
The stock is so cheap we should come together and buy a controlling interest in the company. :)

Buying stock in Kodak prior to their emerging from bankruptcy is absolutely, without a doubt, the worst thing one could possibly contemplate. To begin with, even purchasing 100% of the shares will not give you control. The company is in bankruptcy, and control is now formally in the hands of the court and effectively in the hands of the creditors. Shareholders are powerless in this situation.

Furthermore, the chance that shareholders will retain any value when the company emerges from bankruptcy is zero. For example, suppose you were to invest, let us say, $10,000,000 in kodak shares today and hold them until the company emerges from bankruptcy. When the company emerges from bankruptcy your shares will have a value of $0.00, that's zero, as in absolute zero, as in not worth even one penny.

This is not a good investment strategy.

It all comes down to how things work in a bankruptcy. Without going into much detail, in a bankruptcy there is a sort of prioritization that takes place for claims on company resources. Shareholders are last in line. This means that every class ahead of the shareholders must be made whole before the shareholders get anything. Since the company owes more money than the value of its assets, the current shareholders will be left out in the cold. If there is to be an operating company at the end of all this it will not be owned by the current shareholders.

The typical scenario is for the old shares to be cancelled, and new shares are to be issued to the current bond holders. Thus, the current shareholders get nothing, and the company will end up being owned by the current bond holders.