Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,514   Online: 876
      
Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 449
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Wow, Godwin's law satisfied out of nowhere!
    I marked it OT; you didn't have to read it. As for satisfying "Godwin's Law", I wasn't comparing the nazis to anyone, hence Godwin's Law is not invokable here. There's lots of examples of its proper use to be seen on Slashdot. Check it out.

    s-a

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    And on the motion picture side most studios are reviewing all film production due to the risk Kodak presents.
    I've seen nothing to substantiate that, but it would seem logical that major users of movie film might already be looking for other sources (presumably there's only Fuji?) if they see any risk to the supply of Kodak film...just as we here at APUG already discuss possible subsititutes or changing to other makes.

  3. #103
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    There is no profit.
    That is not quite true in the current context. Kodak is now in chp 11 which means that the liabilities counting against profit are set aside for adjudication.

    Simply saying "there is no profit" is akin to saying that someone in bankruptcy doesn't have spending money. It's just not true. Yes, there are enormous legacy costs etc. that Kodak must deal with, but chp 11 gives them an umbrella under which to reorganize and to spin off profitable businesses. Chp 11 allows you to figure out what is and what is not sustainable business. What isn't sustainable gets liquidated, usually making the sustainable parts much stronger.

    ~~~

    I feel like we're running around and around the same mulberry bush and certain people are just not going to be shaken off their misconceptions, and would prefer to bait others. Perhaps it is time to close the discussion.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    And start hunting very aggressively for new consumers, while preparing to enter adjacent markets and focus marketing on places where it will pay off. That is a liberal paraphrase of the very successful strategy adopted by the cigarette makers after all-out war was declared on them several decades ago.
    So, Kodak should target children and unregulated third-world markets? I'm not sure that's going to work for them.

  5. #105
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,609
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    I feel like we're running around and around the same mulberry bush and certain people are just not going to be shaken off their misconceptions
    There's an easy way to find out what will happen. It just involves a bit of waiting.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #106
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,070
    Images
    65

    Have you looked at the debt?

    Take a look!

    BTW, Mellon bank of PA is the repository of the pension fund. IDK how that connects to Mellon of NY.

    PE
    Attached Files

  7. #107
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    So, Kodak should target children and unregulated third-world markets? I'm not sure that's going to work for them.
    LOL well that'd be a start

    No, what certain tobacco companies did was swallow competitors whole, gaining full market share very quickly and then pool production and management etc. The result is much higher profit per unit sold. Imagine if Coke and Pepsi didn't have to spend money working against each other and you see how it works.

    Regarding tobacco advertising, they had to instantly cease almost all trad'l mass advertising and go on word of mouth and mailings. Now that's what I call adverse business climate! I went witha bunch of MBA students and they were blown away by the creativity that we were shown. Yes tobacco also put more emphasis on the less regulated eastern european market, but they also recognized that it's a short term solution and started to push into "adjacent" areas that make good use of the skills they have.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #108
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    That is not quite true in the current context. Kodak is now in chp 11 which means that the liabilities counting against profit are set aside for adjudication.

    Simply saying "there is no profit" is akin to saying that someone in bankruptcy doesn't have spending money. It's just not true. Yes, there are enormous legacy costs etc. that Kodak must deal with, but chp 11 gives them an umbrella under which to reorganize and to spin off profitable businesses. Chp 11 allows you to figure out what is and what is not sustainable business. What isn't sustainable gets liquidated, usually making the sustainable parts much stronger.

    ~~~

    I feel like we're running around and around the same mulberry bush and certain people are just not going to be shaken off their misconceptions, and would prefer to bait others. Perhaps it is time to close the discussion.
    The point is the new investors in the FPEG product lens want to grow their investments. The revenues are in retreat, for over a decade now, and show no sign of slowing, are hampered by the fact there are pretty much no new film or motion picture cameras being made now, the major scanner manufacturers have stopped dedicated 135/120 scanners, and the whole supply chain of affordable local labs is disappearing worldwide.

    It's kind of hard to grow revenues under those circumstances. Without revenue growth new investment is going to be very hard to come by. Ch. 11 will likely highlight that problem, not solve it. By the time Ch. 11 is resolved, according to Kodak's goodwill estimates, film will have declined another 15%+ in gross revenues. That will put it closer to the goodwill mark and possibly fall below the cost of sales. So for FPEG it all depends now on how fast Kodak can shrink what it costs to reduce and distribute their film products and services.

    If they cannot shrink fast enough, then they have to start selling off non-FPEG assets to make up the cost difference (since Kodak can no long borrow), which would be a violation of creditor rights, like selling the IP brought about creditor concern.

    Saying there are profits is like buying an old couch to find nickels in the cushions. It's still a depreciating couch no one wants to sit on anymore. Now the consumer digital stuff may be brand new and looks all shiny in the showroom, but it's long-term prospects are difficult to see. Although in Q3 2011 they made money. Only Yoda knows about consumer printer demand.

    I am just stating the facts the financials present. The capacity to salvage Portra, Ektar, Tri-X, and T-Max and the motion picture stuff that holds it all together depends on getting the FPEG line away from the dynamic described above. These are the analog crown jewels of the company, but they risk utter termination if their support structure starts to cost the other side of the balance sheet which the creditors value because film is clearly losing over 10% of its market per annum and the digital products are not. It is highly likely that whoever buys Kodak's FPEG will be looking at a market a further 90% depreciated from its current gross revenues.
    Last edited by Aristophanes; 01-20-2012 at 06:52 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: tpyo

  9. #109
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    So Aristophanes, you don't think Fuji would be interested in acquiring the relevant IP and licenses at bargain-basement prices and using it to solidify their own market base? Do you see my point at all?
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #110
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    I am just stating the facts the financials present. The capacity to salvage Portra, Ektar, Tri-X, and T-Max and the motion picture stuff that holds it all together depends on getting the FPEG line away from the dynamic described above. These are the analog crown jewels of the company, but they risk utter termination if their support structure starts to cost the other side of the balance sheet which the creditors value because film is clearly losing over 10% of its market per annum and the digital products are not. It is highly likely that whoever buys Kodak's FPEG will be looking at a market a further 90% depreciated from its current gross revenues.
    Right because, you know, buying anything that may reduce in potential size or revenue is just a sucker's bet, correct?

    Maybe it'll keep going forever until it's use has depreciated negatively, where it's at -50%.

    So please, dear Oracle, tell us what film's use curve looks like for the next 2 decades...
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin