I wish someone would jump in and stop kodak from completely dismantling it's legacy. I don't care who it is or if they completely rename everything. Kodak has always made things to go inside of cameras, now they want to try and turn their company around with printers and plastic point and shoot cameras that appeal to no one? How is that smart? Both of the markets they are trying to become more viable in are already so saturated with much better products. So frustrating and I am only 21 years old. I can't imagine what some you more experienced people are thinking right now.
Kodak presumably still has all the formulae and specifications for its discontinued films and papers, at least for recent years. And it seems to want to derive income from licensing its trademarks for use on products made by other manufacturers (batteries, CD's, etc.)
So what's the problem in licensing the manufacture of some of its film products to one of the other manufacturers, who are capable and have the equipment for producing these in smaller volumes?
I was holding out hope that E200 was going to show up as motion picture stock for indoor light cameras. I guess that isn't going to happen.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
Because any new long-term involvement with film beyond its continuing steady discontinuation would signal the stock analysts that Kodak's digital transition had failed. And Kodak is way, way beyond the point of no return with that attempted transition. Sure, they might want or need the extra money, but the overt act of reaching for it would imply failure. And if Wall Street balks now, Kodak is truly dead meat.
Originally Posted by railwayman3
Kodak may eventually be satisfied with one emulsion each for color/b&w negatives and (maybe) color positive. But given the hideously large quantities their infrastructure reportedly must produce to be profitable - or even just break-even - this may end up not being doable either.
Besides, a prerequisite for that scenario likely would have first been success in their digital transition which, if one reads the press right now, is almost universally presumed to be on very shaky ground. They have seemingly painted themselves into a very tough corner.
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."
— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
Elitechrome 200 is now discontinued, too. So the original poster was indeed right on target.
Fuji Provia 400x and the Rollei ISO 200 film are now the only options (as is push processing) for E6 over ISO 100.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Just as Fuji has discontinued certain products in the US, Kodak can and has discontinued products around the world. Lets not go off on a tangent here yet!
Yes, of course Kodak (and Fuji) can do exactly what they like. But, as has been continually said here, it's the lack of clarity, communication and the hopeless PR which leads customers to speculate....the real worry is, of course, that there will soon be NO analog color products available.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
It seeme obvious tha availability of movie film will be dictated by the reduced demand, given digital projection. Professional film may stabilise, but will it be at a level to be economical (and profitable)? And consumer film for the snapshot market could also disappear, now that smartphones and digital cameras are so cheap and reliable. (I've just been shown some family snapshots taken over the w/e and printed last night by someone with no technical photographic or computer knowledge, and they far better than 90% of the stuff from local minilabs....so why should they bother with the cost, hassle and waiting to do it any other way...)
I can see why we go off on tangents!
(As an OT afterthought, many of my friends seem to spend half the day with their smartphones and other electronic gadgets....couldn't Kodak have got into the top end of that market, using the power of their trademarks, and its link with quality "imaging"? We'd then be seeing "sent from my Kodak", rather than "sent from my Blackberry". )
Last edited by railwayman3; 02-21-2011 at 02:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
George Fischer from Motorola was CEO of Kodak and never nudged EK in that direction even though he was one of the leaders in smart phones at Motorola.
Kodak's strategy (to my eyes at least) has been one of trying to "inconvenience the right people". That is to say to force a buyout from an HP or Lexmark or Samsung or whomever.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
I would base that statement on a) Their attempts to compete in the consumer inkjet printer market which has forced competitors to lower prices, thereby lowering their own earnings b) Their focus on securing revenue from intellectual property from players in the digital space.
Kodak's production capabilities are not "hideously-large" by the standards of even just a few years ago. They down-sized tremendously back in 2003/2004. Had they downsized even more they would have had a problem both in terms of greater restructuring charges *and* cashflow because the plant, property, and equipment does allow them to claim depreciation for tax purposes.
Analysts, Ken, do not care how money is made. They simply care that earnings meet/exceed targets. If Kodak could generate the sort of margins they could on their film business back in the late 90s - the analysts would be delighted. Leadership is only questioned when they have failed to deliver or there are real questions as to whether it can continue to deliver.
They clearly have failed and I think it will not be too long before Kodak's debt holders are calling the shots and Perez et. al. have been kicked to the curb. Certainly if the final decision (due in May) on the current patent infringement suit against Apple isn't in Kodak's favor...changes could happen sooner rather than later.
Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..
Motorola is a great local company. It was horribly late in the smartphone market, has had massive layoffs and has been scrambling to survive. If Kodak got its prior CEO from Motorola, I'd say that reflects poorly on Kodak's board and may explain a lot about the company's struggles to succeed in something other than film.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer