|
|
|
-
Where Kodak film is manufactured or how good the formulary notes are is all irrelevant if no one can see the bottom of the film market. Film manufacturing is an industrial process and there may simply not be enough demand based on the recycling of eBay and flea market cameras. Industrial film camera production is almost no more in quantities to sustain film.
Any purchaser of Kodak film has to weigh the plummeting demand before all else. Maybe cinema can sustain it, maybe not. That's changing swiftly as well. The current share price is a reflection of the future film market and the future digital market, both named Kodak. We know digital has a future. Film.………?
-
I think I misinterpreted your post to suggest that a company could recreate Kodak-level products from scratch or from Kodak's notes. If you're talking about someone picking up Kodak's film division as a whole, sure. As mentioned, it sure would be a risky buy though.
-
 Originally Posted by PaulMD
If you're talking about someone picking up Kodak's film division as a whole, sure. As mentioned, it sure would be a risky buy though.
We need to get someone like Bill Gates to take up film photography and spend some petty cash to buy himself a little company to keep him (and us) in film!
Steve.
-
From 24/7
"First there was the rumor that Eastman Kodak was close to Chapter 11 when it hired law firm Jones Day, which has a reputation as a restructure specialist. Last Friday, Eastman Kodak’s stock dropped from $1.62 to just below $0.60 in a matter of minutes. Concerns about the company began when it took down $160 million from a credit line, which moved shares from $3.38 to $1.60. Kodak denied that it needed that money to remain financially viable. It then denied it planned a bankruptcy filing. Shares rebounded to $1.32 at Monday’s open. Credit experts said Kodak would not go under because its patent portfolio is worth $3 billion."
"It is sometimes impossible to know where rumors of bankruptcies begin. No matter what their sources, shareholders and companies can do very little to prevent the panic that drives their share prices down. Someone made a mistake, or decided to make money from a rumor, in the case of Kodak and AMR. And those persons probably never will have to make any restitution."
Overall I have bad feelings about the end of 2012 and foresee Kodak out of business. I hope not, but I feel so far that sh*t is going to hit the fan for all of us. A Republican House, Senate and Presidency will be a slash and burn spectacular. Then add in declining economies in Europe. In such an atmosphere it will be hard for many companies to survive let alone those that are wounded.
-
End of 2012? Don't forget the Mayan prophecy 
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
We need to get someone like Bill Gates to take up film photography and spend some petty cash to buy himself a little company to keep him (and us) in film!
Steve.
If Gates was into film, you could get all kinds of service, but Bill would hold the copyright to every image.
-
Originally Posted by fstop
If Gates was into film, you could get all kinds of service, but Bill would hold the copyright to every image.
Haha. Bill Gates' (and Steve Jobs') business model is simple and very effective. Make your own product obsolete on a periodic basis by introducing a minor new feature or two. But... you have to do so with a newer/better product that people actually want to buy. Until recently it was working very well for both. It is a business model that ultimately fails, but you make a helluva lot of money as long as you can keep it going.
-
Doesn't matter to Jobs anymore RIP Steve Jobs 1955-2011.
Kodunk obsoleted themselves and it didn't work for them like it does for confuser makers.Kodak should used as an example of what not to do.Digital didn't put Kodak out of business, Kodak put themselves out of business.
-
Originally Posted by keithwms
Haha. Bill Gates' (and Steve Jobs') business model is simple and very effective. Make your own product obsolete on a periodic basis by introducing a minor new feature or two. But... you have to do so with a newer/better product that people actually want to buy. Until recently it was working very well for both. It is a business model that ultimately fails, but you make a helluva lot of money as long as you can keep it going.
And some companies have kept it going for decades (without making tons of money) by introducing genuine improvements to their products. Software is a special case because each additional copy of Word, for example, costs Microsoft essentially nothing to produce. That cannot be said for any tangible product, like a Leica perhaps. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating Steel Era business parameters to the digital realm; it doesn't work.
About 2012, uplist, I have bad feelings too. If the world's economy depends on people spending money they don't have (and it does) then what happens if they decide to, or must, buy only within their means for everything except really big ticket items? 0% interest rates haven't helped Japan one bit and I doubt it will work anywhere else. There will be non-niche companies disappearing in the next few years and while that doesn't by necessity spell doom for all niche companies, like film, it makes the task of survival even more difficult.
Perhaps there will be a 'Buy a Brick' drive, like with War Bonds. (Although I'm not old enough to remember War Bonds I am old enough to remember when a brick was twenty and not 10.)
s-a
|
|
Adv Reply
