Old news? Obviously not to some around here given the inanities on several Kodak threads over the last few days. Lost revenue is lost revenue. Kodak's market share meant the losses were large, painful, and irremediable.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
I don't think the money was ever "easy". Kodak invested staggering amounts into reaching deep into the consumer experience and taking the brand along with it, only to find that investment worthless when the quality of digital + its unavoidable convenience became good enough for the average consumer.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Fuji was also hit, but they actually still manufacture sensors (licensing some Kodak patents!) and still produce cameras. Perez should get that axe for failing to keep up with that rival.
But now we are talking about a primarily digital Kodak. It's really hard to make a case that management mismanaged the film asset. From what I understand in another thread, even in the face of the digital paradigm shift, Kodak still invested in a more flexible plant for multiple emulsion systems, and they continued with motion picture efforts to considerable acclaim, and more recently they re-worked Portra and Ektar. That is neither euthanasia nor complacency. I don't think anything Kodak could have done different on the film side could have stemmed any of the erosion of the consumer base.
Kodak, not Sony, sensors should be in every Nikon. Instead of transitioning Kodak like IBM did, Kodak should still be to digital photography what Intel is to the microchip :"Kodak Inside". The lead Kodak squandered is a tragedy.....
the ink jet printers kodak makes/made were/are better than
their competition. rather than pay the nose through the ink
you pay a fair amount for a good printer and get cheap ink.
i see nothing wrong with that, seeing i paid a fair amount for my printer
and i pay 200$/year for the ink. if i had a kodak printer i wouldn't pay even close to that
for my ink ...
its too bad they didn't advertise to the consumer ink sector better ... i only saw
their printer ads while i caught up on robert éponge avec les culottes carrés
Perez should be fired because the market doesn't have trust in his abilities and because he was rated one of the worst CEO last year. Perez is bad publicity for Kodak, Investors don't trust him or believe a word he says. That's a legitimate reason to get rid of him and is based on several articles written about Kodak and Antonio Perez.
I've heard that Kodak printers were good and have seen it first hand but Kodak isn't perceived as printer company but as Film company.
OK, so a new spectacularly capable CEO will turn back the clock for EK? Really?
Originally Posted by MDR
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Never said that but if the market or investors don't believe in a guy he should be fired at least in a company owned by Stockholders. That's a business fact nobody will invest in anything Kodak not only because Film is on decline but because they don't trust its CEO. That's two strikes against Kodak the second one can easily be solved furthermore I don't believe that Perez is solely responsible for Kodak's downfall where was the board of directors, where were the advisors that can't seem to shut up now. Perez is a symbol that's all a new CEO with the marketing genius of Steve Jobs would be necessary and even this genius would'nt have it easy.
Please keep him on your side of the Ocean... We don't need no incompetent people here... already have a HUGE bunch !
Originally Posted by bwfans
Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast (Oscar Wilde)
My APUG Blog
My favourite cartoon series.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Perez turned Kodak into clown school. They could have made much better decisions with someone else in charge. As CEO and someone of that level, they need to get shot from the company, no parachutes, no questions asked. Perform, make money for shareholders or get out. It's simple business.
Forbes: The Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives
Habit #1: They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment
I don't know that Perez ever saw Kodak as dominating the environment, but he certainly saw himself as dominating the environment.
Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interests
I'm sure Perez doesn't understand what is best for Kodak, only what is best for himself.
Habit #3: They think they have all the answers
I'm sure Perez thinks he has all the answers.
Habit #4: They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t completely behind them
Habit #5: They are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with the company image
I think Perez is obsessed with his image.
Habit #6: They underestimate obstacles
Perez has no clue of the obstacles.
Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past
Nothing worked for Perez in the past, not that he doesn't mind that.