Just a real shame. I've always been a Kodak fan and supporter. One would be hard pressed to find better products of such consistent quality. Just a shame. :(
Printable View
Just a real shame. I've always been a Kodak fan and supporter. One would be hard pressed to find better products of such consistent quality. Just a shame. :(
Actually, that's not too bad as without debtor-in-possession financing everything stops suddenly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
The share price is irrelevant, just a reflex action by the biz newswires.
Kodak may file their January results, then go Ch. 11 very shortly thereafter, ending the speculation.
Agreed. And what Kodak should be doing is cashing in on that reputation. Rather than spending to try to make a new one based on products that could take a decade to get a foothold.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg
Seems to me the best way to put the film brand to rest is to make a formal commitment to provide certain products for 5 years. This is not a commitment to keep prices constant, on the contrary. But it is a reaffirmation that they see need for their product and they will stand by it. That would stop the migration to other brands and raise funds for more orderly scaledown.
Probably too late for this approach though :(
Longer term, Kodak needs a company like Apple or RIM to help them get into the social network arena, they are going to be absolutely screwed if they keep throwing investment into print-at-home media.
Very short term, I don't see why they couldn't land a big fat contract to provide printers to public schools or such. I am a card-carrying free-market Libertarian, but when it comes down to keeping people's jobs and preserving our competitiveness, this is what it takes. This is now an issue of national defense, the way I see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibucompany
I wouldn't be so sure. It could also put a negative spin on the whole film and accelerate the exodus. Paper is also a problem with very few coating facilities around the world and any pressure will be felt there too, with less choices as the result (and it's pretty grim already).
Our best look at that, since Fuji and Ilford reps probably won't come on here and level with us about long-term strategy, is the product price increases that we see. I would expect huge bumps in price if indeed the end is near (for reasons I mentioned above). For the most part, we're not seeing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
(There are some weird, off-scale prices in Australia, but I am guessing that has more to do with distribution inside the country than supply from the companies.)
If total demand is relatively stable then I expect that prices will also be fairly stable. If the -30% Kodak number were also being felt by Ilford and Fuji then their prices should go up sharply and very soon.
That we haven't see this yet suggests to me that this is mostly an issue with Kodak. Let's see.
Ayn Rand would say "Bye, bye Kodak".Quote:
Originally Posted by keithwms
Saving jobs that the market cannot save is to tamper with the free market, and in the long run, does no one any favors. This country does not need one more subsidized company.
Again, I am as pro-free-market as they come, but at some point we'll be back in the alphabet soup of the 1930s, looking for any job we can find, if we don't quickly act to preserve what little sci & tech manufacturing base that what we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverGlow
And my suggestion is not to create a handout for Kodak. A contract such as I describe is not a subsidy. A contract would be configured to pay market price for what Kodak does, and the bid would be competitively reviewed. And if Kodak's printer offerings do indeed represent a big potential cost savings for government, then it is totally appropriate for agencies to look at that and proceed with an investment in all due haste.
We need to see how things pan out. I was reminded today while taking my mother to the opticiansd that Kodak have many other market segments.
A surge of 3D films last year obviously impacted movie film stock sales but at the same time the industry is realising that film may be a bettr way to archiv films than digital.
What's really needed from our point of view is new owners of the coating division who retain an interest in film and allow the division to thrive again. More importantly a new sales & distribution structure needs to be put in place. Visiting two shops selling colour & B&W films this week there was no Kodak to be seen, and that's in the UK.
Ian
There is no better way to archive a motion picture then to digitize it. A motion picture has an exceedingly better chance of surviving the coming ages in digital form. Archiving of motion pictures is not going to be a boon for film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
It matters little how keen an interest the coating division has in film. What matters more is what the buying public and potential market for film think. The film industry needs to find a way to provoke desire for film in the public.
It seems to me such a contract might help save Kodak, but will it stimulate the market toward Kodak printers? I doubt it. Without the buying public creating demand for Kodak products, government contracts aren't going to help them. And besides, what if HP or some other brand competes for the contract, and they come in lower/better? Now where does that leave Kodak?Quote:
Originally Posted by keithwms
i think we all might have to just face facts; that Kodak might not be saveable. I would guess that the film business unit will be spun off or sold off and only in the form of an independent autonomous business can Kodak film survive and be profitable, but only as a boutique/specialty type concern (selling very high priced products in low volume).