Emerging details of Kodak's plan for restructuring
Emerging details of Kodak's plan for restructuring leave little doubt that its film division will get an axe.
From today's WSJ
"Kodak's move, which came early Thursday morning, sets up a highly uncertain process that, if successful, will allow it to emerge in a year or two as a smaller company with fewer employees and perhaps very little to do with the photography business, on which it built its name.
But there are doubts, even on Kodak's board, about whether its strategy of becoming a printer company and competing with giant rivals such as HP Co. makes sense."
Multum egerunt, qui ante nos fuerunt, sed non peregedunt.
Seems to me that much rests on the success or failure of Kodak's current lawsuits against Apple and HTC (and RIM too, if I remember correctly). If they are able to stake a claim to certain sensor IP then their imaging IP will define some very nice possibilities. It's a slim chance, but....
As far as printers, well, Perez et al should be banished to a remote island with their printers. C'mon guys, that idea is so ten years ago. They seem to be totally missing the fact that printers too are not the future of imaging... even if they do succeed in gaining some market share there. Social networking, cloud sharing, more broad interest in spontaneous low-res smartphone snapshots etc are trends for which paper printing strategies have no clear response. Polaroid actually is better suited to these trends, believe it or not. If somebody at Kodak would simply speak to a teenager...
I am thinking that for Kodak to make any serious inroads in printing, they need a big customer / contract - Federal govt or such. The consumer market isn't going to come to the rescue. Well, maybe if Apple bought out their printer biz and attached some of their own cool to it...
I guess we'll all see. I think it'll be hard to compete in the printer market. What'd be nice is a small and profitable company that supplies the photographic arts. Film, digital sensors, scanners, high quality film scanners, and printers too if they like. Kodak is photography, just like Aston Martin is cars." Just dreaming.
In my work I deal with quite a few small businesses and, for many years, they have all used small copiers and printers from the existing big makers. Similarly, those friends and relatives who actually make paper copies of their digital and phone snapshots all have existing printers. Most are happy with these, even if tied in by proprietory cartridges and refills.
I use a 12-year-old Sharp copier (which admittedly will have to retire soon, due to cartridges no longer being produced), a modern Samsung laser copier/printer (could last up to 10 years on present usage) and a top-end Epson color printer for my photography (should last me out on present usage!).
I'd imagine that I'm fairly typical, so I can only wonder how Kodak could hope penetrate this kind of consumer market to any meaningful degree? If their intention is top-end specialist industrial and commercial users, this would not seen a good time, with cuts in investment, price pressures and the need to minimise risk by keeping with existing and known suppliers of equipment?
IDK, just wondering aloud.
My sentiment exactly, how can Agfa be rebuilt and Kodak cut loose its film division?
Originally Posted by Jeff L
Multum egerunt, qui ante nos fuerunt, sed non peregedunt.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by vedmak
kodak has stopped advertising most of its traditional film products. with all the distribution and processing channels ( photofinishing ) gone
it is hard for a business that relied on distribution and photofinishing to remain in business.
i don't really see this whole bankruptcy-restructuring being anything more than kodak concentrating on what that had planned to concentrate to begin with ..
the next generation of amateur imagemaking. ( that's not the same as analog photography )
luckily there are a handful of other companies that can easily pick up the slack!
i just find it sad that when given the opportunity to sell master rolls of film to a company that is experienced in cutting, notching, and packaging
specialty sizes for the sheet film crowd who use hard to find sizes like 20x24, 14x17, 7x11 &c, they refuse ...
even thought the film probably would have all be sold to the last scrap... in a few months...
The problem is that Kodak is behind the times on this as well. Today, millions of pictures are taken, and very few are printed. Those people that don't have an inkjet photo printer already still think it's "too difficult" to print at home, and they'll go to Walmart anyway and have their pictures printed on Fuji RA-4 paper. There was an article many years ago that explained how printing photographs in general was dying, but all I was able to find was this article from 2005(!) that says that printing at home is on the way out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/te...oto.ready.html
Originally Posted by jnanian
If Kodak thinks that this dying business is going to save them from whatever ills they have, I would prepare the funeral ASAP.
"Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler
The one big thing that Kodak has going for it as a Printer Company though, is that Kodak is the picture company. HP and Epson don't come to mind when we talk about classic prints. With a huge advertising campaign with new, easy to use products based on the classic style of Kodak commercials, I think you could have a chance. But if they don't caplitalize on the Kodak legacy for imaging, as a printer company, they will be useless. Heck, even their claims of printing cheaper, which has been their printer tactic lately, is just horrible - nobody trusts that.
Heck, I didn't even know they had any presence in consumer printers until now ...
I agree about the printing side. Kodak has it all wrong there. Unfortunately, printing is just not en vogue anymore. Personally, the only time I get non-darkroom stuff printed is with Apple's services of books with iPhoto. They look great and the printing is of good quality. The web and computers/iPads/phones is how most pictures are viewed and shared these days so Kodak is way off there.