Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,295   Posts: 1,535,619   Online: 1071
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,278
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    GM's market share dropped during their downsizing time. If memory serves GM used to have close to 50% market share in the US around 1980. Today that is less than 20%. Somehow they managed to downsize their operations and continue production.

    No one is making any new films. Kodak is just selling their old formulations.

    If Kodak downsized properly, they can adjust their facility to be the proper size. According to PE Kodak can produce a years demand of film in one day today. Kodak could easily produce enough to keep sales going while they re-tool their production to the smaller size.

    Everyone always comes back with numerous excuses that say can't can't can't. Can't be done. I've never seen a more negative (heh heh) industry than film producing. Why is it ALWAYS can't be done?
    RattyMouse:

    Market share doesn't mean squat in a market that is shrinking. And GM's market share was high, but their losses were higher.

    Kodak is saddled with the expectations of the holders of what was once a huge market capitalization.

    The directors of Kodak are/were required by law to try to replace the profit stream that was film with something similarly profitable. Film will never be that big again.

    I believe that film can be a profitable and healthy industry, but I think that Kodak wasted its chance to be a major part of that industry. If they had downsized several years ago, and then used their resources to build other, parallel streams of profits, things would be different.

    Remember that it took an insolvency and what was essentially a re-start from almost the beginning to make Ilford the small but apparently successful entity that it is now.

    And Ilford remains far, far smaller than Kodak's film and paper business is today.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #32
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,821
    Images
    108
    If Kodak can manufacture all its film sales in one day , it makes its bigger 400 times they can sell If the film sales dropped 1/10 , it makes Kodak was 40 times bigger than it can sell 30 years ago. Am I wrong somewhere ? I think we did not count movie industry. It makes movie industry was consuming lots of film 30 years ago.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,912
    Images
    37
    Kodak is NOT required by law to replace lost profits. The law cannot require either the impossible nor the stupid. The law at best requires the board of directors to follow the best interests of the ownership. If the ownership wants massive profits, then they follow that. If the ownership wants to stay a film company, then they could have downsized. Used the billions of dollars in capital that they had at one time and shrank to what would have been a more sustainable company.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by kb3lms View Post
    No doubt there are HUGE costs in downsizing an industrial giant. It's likely the cost of the legacy overheads are the real cost issues. Production of film at the correct scale probably wouldn't be a cost problem. The issue is getting from where you are today to the correct scale when you have the legacy costs consuming all the money.



    If it is done right, bringing a company back to profitability might be a very rewarding challenge. The upside is that once a company is profitable you may get to try again, if you can develop new products and services that someone wants whether they are in your current market or something else.
    In a way this is very positive: Kodak films could be saved. But reading the other posts I realize there are more forces, like shareholders, involved. Still a shame the right people didn't see this at the right time to save E6...

  5. #35
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,094
    Unfortunately, Kodak is saddled with an idiot at the top, who probably hired, promoted other idiots that agreed with him. It is amazing that he is still there.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    Unfortunately, Kodak is saddled with an idiot at the top, who probably hired, promoted other idiots that agreed with him. It is amazing that he is still there.
    Bad management seems to be their problem since the mid 80s, they basically invented the digital camera, developed stunning megapixel sensors before its competition and they completely missed the boat.

  7. #37
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,821
    Images
    108
    Inventing something with few newly developed integrated circuits and to produce millions of canon dslrs are completely different things.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,142
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinten View Post
    Bad management seems to be their problem since the mid 80s, they basically invented the digital camera, developed stunning megapixel sensors before its competition and they completely missed the boat.
    thats cause they spent a lot of time keeping all their analog / traditional film based customers
    instead of dumping us and going full steam ahead into the bright new future which we are all grateful for.
    so, in a way their problem is because of us ... hosue could kodak dump the film based history they entrenched themselves in ?
    not to mention, when you are used to cooking for 300 million, its very hard to cook for 10 millon / an empty nest
    without getting rid of your kitchen and cookware and ... .. ( its like making ramen noodles in a 20 gallon pot . )

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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