Interesting Info on BJP site regarding the future of Kodak Film http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...22+says+Kodak+
Hey, Apple was once in the printer business....but they were smart enought to get OUT of the printer business.
Originally Posted by keithwms
A long time ago.
And to turn to the government to buy their stupid Kodak printers is not a deal that will SUSTAIN Kodak....Kodak needs ONLY sustainable solutions....not government band-aids.
Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.
This sort of "say it isn't so" article doesn't help much. If anything, it's a somewhat balmy denial of the nose dive in demand for film over the last 5-8 years, especially in the huge N. American market. Can anyone here deny it? Steady collapse of pro labs and cheap c-41 processing/printing aren't indicative of steady demand. Rising prices for film and processing aren't making a case for film, either. It's going to require one helluva load of film nostalgia to tip the balance back in Kodak's favor--something this article ducks.
Originally Posted by MDR
A friend of mine who's a career marketing guy feels strongly that it's a law of nature that any large, non-commodity market has room for exactly two large players; everyone else merges into "other". E.g., Fender/Gibson/Other, Canon/Nikon/Other (consumer SLRs, I'm thinking of here), Intel/AMD/Other. It's possible to quibble with specific examples (are American cars one market structured as Ford/GM/Other, and Japanese cars a different one with Honda/Toyota/Other, or what?), but as a general analysis it seems to hold together.
Well, the printer market settled down some time ago to Epson/Canon/Other. I suppose Kodak could wedge themselves into the "Other" category alongside HP, Brother, Lexmark, and so on, but if they want to sustain a large company on the printer business, they need to knock off either Epson or Canon (much as Canon, not that long ago, knocked off HP). That would be a seriously tall order for a company *without* Kodak's burdens; for them to choose it as their best path for restructuring looks, from out here, absolutely bonkers.
I don't suppose it bears one way or another on the fate of their film operations---it was always pretty clear, IMHO, that they weren't going to go into Chapter 11 and say "we will reemerge as a dedicated film company", so the question of what they mean to do with film---keep it, sell it, or kill it---remains open. The quotes in the BJP article suggest that "kill it" would be unlikely, at least.
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_
This is from today's AP. Kodak has until 2013 to reorganize:
"Rochester, N.Y.— Eastman Kodak Co. has obtained a bankruptcy judge's approval to borrow an initial $650 million from Citigroup Inc. to keep operations running while it peddles a trove of digital-imaging patents.
The ailing photography pioneer filed for bankruptcy protection on Thursday, and is required under the financing terms to produce a reorganization plan by Feb. 15, 2013.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper in New York also set a June 30 deadline for Kodak to seek his approval of bidding procedures for the sale of 1,100 patents that analysts estimate could fetch at least $2 billion.
After years of struggles to transform itself into a printing powerhouse, Kodak ran short of cash and sought protection from its creditors. It has been trying to sell its patents since July."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Any Kodak legacy that remains has little to no impact in the minds of anyone under 30 years old, who hardly know what Kodak is and almost assuredly have no direct experience with it (save things like EasyShare or their waterproof solid state video cameras, which one could treat as disposables). This argument aged out a while ago, as I don't really think you are going to make enough funds this way. The boat has sailed.
Originally Posted by AlbertZeroK
They took a shot at "economy printing" but again they were a small cannonball dashed against the fortress wall of huge established players (Epson, etc). Frankly, I think some of the reason is that most consumers can't manage a household budget very well anyhow and really aren't going to be intellectual enough about it to be a frugal person and realize value when they see it. When a so-so digital print costs $0.14 at Walgreen's and someone else makes it for them, guess where they will go for printing - not at home. It's quick and "good enough" (sic).
As so many have said here before, the consumer wants convenience, convenience, convenience, and is willing to trade a huge amount of quality for that convenience in order to satisfy the Pavlovian "ring bell; want food NOW" urge, a decidely subconscious trigger and a damn compelling one at that. I just can't see at this stage that Kodak has any way to make themselves unique in this new model given all the debt and legacy infrastructure weight they are dragging around. Better to fracture into pieces and hope someone can downshift the FPEG group to a more supportable model. Maybe.
Now all of you reading this should be rushing right over to Ron Mowrey and lining up for his Emulsion Making DVD! No promotional money was paid for this ad
I'm ready for the next big Kodak screwup. Note the adjustable plywood partition I built for our freezer.
Agree was at the pharmacy picking up my wife's prints (she's no Apeg'r) and saw a stack of prints for another order sitting on the counter. I was stunned at the lack of quality of the camera that the person that used. However the photographs were outstanding and it kind of made me proud to see that people are still taking lots of photos but for some people image quality and the type of camera used is irrelevant to the fact that they captured the moment, got it printed and put it in their book. Kodak has missed this bus unfortunately.
Originally Posted by usuthu65
I agree, I was merely brainstorming about how to raise funds immediately and come out of chp 11. They need to raise a bil or two, minimum. That is doable if they show how to stem losses and if they land some revenue. What they do next is up to the next CEO.
Originally Posted by SilverGlow
Perez came from HP, and apparently the only thing he knows is inkjet printing, and apparently doesn't know that very well either (or Kodak would have better inkjet products). He seems to think they will somehow compete in a market they have failed at before. I sure hope they spin off the film divisions, and don't let this latest folly drag that into the ground as well.