A separate report has said that Kodak is actually eliminating its film group from the overall restructuring. This could mean that there will be a cut to manufacturing of film, but it is open to speculation, as analysts have pointed out.
The scenario with Kodak parallels in some respects the restructuring of Ford and GMH, both of which are seeking more and more money to continue in a market that has been crying out for change for years, but yet they persist in producing the big 6s (especially Ford) in a market that is now smaller car/SUV-driven. For Kodak, it should continue on its digital path and forget about film if it is ever to be profitable, especially with a swag of valuable patents. Not sure taking on Apple for infringement of patents is a good idea while on the cusp of Chapter 11 proceedings.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
Poisson du jour it's the digital part that seems to kill Kodak the only money Kodak makes is in the Film division. So I wouldn't think that killing off the film division and competing in the digital world with companies that are 10 to 20 times larger than Kodak is a very smart idea. Kodak has become a very small fish these days even Fuji is a lot bigger than Kodak. Kodak should act like a small fish innovate and find a niche market to survive competing with companies like Seiko/Epson Hewlett Packard and Sony isn't very smart. Kodak has already sold a large amount of its profitable patents so no money from
this side. Innovation and finding a niche not necessarily film could be in the digi realm but it has to be unique and a must have product imho the only thing that can save Kodak
For Kodak, it should continue on its digital path and forget about film if it is ever to be profitable
Seems like an odd prescription: The film unit is turning a profit already, and Kodak's record of finding profitable ways to adapt to digital technology is, um, dubious. At least in the consumer space---they're done well at things like industrial process monitoring, as I understand it.
We're all speculating here, but I suppose splitting the commercial and consumer sides of the company could pave the way for letting the commercial side focus on digital, where it actually has done well, and the consumer side on film, where ditto.
, especially with a swag of valuable patents. Not sure taking on Apple for infringement of patents is a good idea while on the cusp of Chapter 11 proceedings.
I do know a bit about patent gamesmanship, and I think it's at least plausible that taking on Apple has an element of playing to prospective buyers. If you're a competitor to Apple, you might take notice of a portfolio for sale that's known to have some material relevant to Apple. Again, though, speculating.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
The reorganization doesn't make much sense--other than to reassure investors that *something* is being done. There are some contradictions--film may not be the (big) future, but it's still a profitable unit. My understanding is that the bulk of film is sold to motion picture companies--so how would that fit into a consumer division? This is the classic rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic.