Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,042   Posts: 1,560,808   Online: 1103
      
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657

    If you haven't already read it...


  2. #2
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,608
    Images
    28
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...167627950.html
    "As we sit here today, the company has no intention of filing for bankruptcy."


    Also from your link

    "Perez, who took the helm in 2005, has sharpened Kodak’s focus on the printing business to help revive revenue."

    Good decision there..

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895

    Not surprising

    You could see the writing on the wall a week or more ago when they tapped their revolving credit line - which was a suprise to many people.

    I think the company has been up for sale from the moment they went after the consumer inkjet market and I believe their strategy had always been to "inconvenience" a Lexmark or HP into acquiring them.

    When the emphasis shifted to lawsuits over patent revenue - it was obvious that the end was near and a breakup was certain.

    I'm not quite ready to say this is the end of Kodak film - but any group acquiring that division will have to accept some pretty hairy risks from toxic torts for the next century...
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  4. #4
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,608
    Images
    28
    Well it sounds more like the rest of the company that's not film production is the sinking ship, ironically.

    edit:

    If the film-production division was hurting the company that bad while the rest of it was fine, it'd obviously be axed or sold off.

    If the film-production division was doing bad while the rest of it was fine, that wouldn't be news and their credit/finances would be fine.

    I think it's obvious which part of the company is a problem. Not a part we have to worry about.

    We have to worry about spill-over effects of decisions on the part we care about, and the rest of the company dragging down the film-division..
    Last edited by Athiril; 09-30-2011 at 02:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,348
    Images
    148
    Poor management for many years and no focus on how to take the company forward in the consumer market compounded by an extremely poor choice of CEO in Perez has brough t this on.

    Ian

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    You could see the writing on the wall a week or more ago when they tapped their revolving credit line - which was a suprise to many people.

    I think the company has been up for sale from the moment they went after the consumer inkjet market and I believe their strategy had always been to "inconvenience" a Lexmark or HP into acquiring them.

    When the emphasis shifted to lawsuits over patent revenue - it was obvious that the end was near and a breakup was certain.

    I'm not quite ready to say this is the end of Kodak film - but any group acquiring that division will have to accept some pretty hairy risks from toxic torts for the next century...
    I think the Bloomberg piece mentions the possibility of bankruptcy as a way to lessen chances of issues with the transfer of intellectual property, so as to make their patents more attractive. I'll re-read it later, but I agree, it looks pretty grim for the company as it is now.

    Open letter to Kodak: If you keep making Tri-X I'll keep buying it. Probably some other stuff too.

  7. #7
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Please, not another 300 "magical thinking" posts on what ails Kodak along with home remedies.

  8. #8
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Regardless of shooting or not shooting film, it is an absolute crying shame and disaster that such a great name and company, one of the truly greatest in the world from an historic standpoint, is going down the tubes this way. Extremely sad, really, and that's whether you love or hate Kodak.

  9. #9
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,608
    Images
    28
    I don't think this is grim for the film division, I think it threatens the film division only indirectly as a result of what happens to the sinking ship part of the company.

    In any case I wrote elsewhere that;

    The article states Kodak has 19,000 worldwide employees. Nikon has estimated theirs about 25,000. Which is a comparable size. Nikon specialise in optical devices and cameras/lenses. Their public presence is basically only cameras/lenses and sporting optical devices (to a small extent, those with that interest know about it, Joe Bloggs not so much). Kodak generalise. Nikon's public presence dwarfs all of Kodak's generalisations/wide spread business.

    Canon generalise. At 2007, their number of employees was put at 130,000. I guess you could say Canon does what Kodak is/was trying to do.


    But they have more employees to put behind each branch of generalisation vs Kodak, as well as their products don't suck that much (for what they are) vs Kodak's.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,474
    Thank the American MBA. The root of our problems since 1975.

    For such an intelligent country how can we continually produce such disastrous business managers?
    - Bill Lynch

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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