 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 16
that's really sad - but truly a direction that they were definitely heading in - with the way they handled things.
Olympus E-30
Lenses:
9-18mm f4-5.6
14-54mm f2.8-3.5
35mm f3.5
70-300mm f4.0-5.6
Share price is up to 82 cents! :O
Seems all the reports are saying that they want to concentrate more on the digital market.
Now all they need to do is come up with a snappy mass appeal product to win back customers.
Maybe they could call it ezy share or something trendy like that.
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
Threadstarter
Lazy share?
.... hazy share maybe?
How about something more indicative of the current situation .... PWNED!!
(well at least it'd appeal to the mass geek market)
... up to 82 cents!!
only another 22% increase in value to go before they become a fully fledged two bit company.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
The really horrendous part of this is that as the company falters, those at the top (CEO/Directors, etc) are probably pocketing millions per annum, patting each other on the back and generally saying 'it had to happen', 'we had to do this for the benefit of the company', when their bad decisions have been the contributing factors to the demise of this once great and lauded company.
After the GFC, governments all over the world were telling us they were going to make these people more responsible, yet nothing has changed. They sit there getting the fat pays and bonuses, even as once proud and amazing companies are falling apart around them.
I find this truly sad! Kodak, the company, deserves/deserved better.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
http://www.economist.com/node/21542796
Good read!
Threadstarter
The final sentence is telling!...
(on the topic of Fuji)
.... "Film went from 60% of its profits in 2000 to basically nothing, yet it found new sources of revenue. Kodak, along with many a great company before it, appears simply to have run its course. After 132 years it is poised, like an old photo, to fade away."
As has already been said, film is not a viable option for a once massive company such as these two giants
They used to dealing in billions of dollars, not only in total sales, but profits as well.
To concentrate on film which can't be worth more than a couple of million or so in profit, is a defeatist attitude.
This is the equivalent of accepting a 1/1000th decrease in revenue and profits within a 5 year period. Hardly an acceptable business practise.
For Kodak, it should look to sell of it's film making arm now, while there is still something left of it where they can attract a decent amount of money from it, before it completely collapses in a few years time.
As time goes by the film manufacturing sector is only going to contract more so, until there's basically nothing left of it at all. Kodak are then stuck with plant and equipment worth zero.
They could offer a licensing deal where the branding of the film could still be called Kodak, and this would attract at least some royalties for Kodak...
But it's way too late, Kodak should have done this at least 5-6 years ago.
It's obvious that Kodak's incompetent management system has created this situation.
if you now look at Fuji's digital camera range, it seems that everyone aspires to owning one!
If the pursuit of digital technology has been the downfall of Kodak as some folk imply, then it's due to ill conceived ideas rather than the technology itself.
I highly doubt that if Kodak hadn't stretched it's resources to ride the crest of the digital age, and concentrated solely on film, it would be worth any money at all.
Fuji and it's much larger size would have swallowed it up whole and consolidated all of Kodak's old film production into one manufacturing corporation.
Exactly.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/27...-11-bankruptcy
GAME SET AND MATCH! Goodbye Kodak.
Last edited by KeeFy; 19-01-2012 at 6:38pm. Reason: better link
It's chapter 11, not chapter 7...Originally Posted by KeeFy
How many companies actually make it out of chapter 11? Not many. Considering the oncoming global meltdown as well. I say good game.
Sadly there is nothing very surprising about the demise of Kodak. The survival and continued success of Fujifilm though, that's remarkable.
Fujifilm made the digital transition, their revenue/profit is not in film.
Um, you make that sound a lot easier than I think it was.
No doubt! But the issue is they did and Kodak did not. Kodak actually had a better starting point, but just failed to capitalise on it.
kodak had been in trouble since the 70s/80s and were just unable to dig themselves out of a hole. they were still making big profits but they were diminishing. there were loads of failed decisions during that period. remember disc film? they also made a video camera that could plug into you tv but didn't believe the public would pay for such an expensive item. they ditched it. videotape (which kodak didn't make) sales started eating into their profits.
they also couldn't attract the electronics gurus to move from california to rochester.
their list of problems was endless. digital cameras weren't the catalyst but rather the final nail in the coffin.
fuji survived because they pretty much cut the cord in the photography market. don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that their digital camera industry, whilst healthy enough, is largely subsidised by other industries...xerox etc.
last I heard was that they were moving into the cosmetics industry.
Yes, Fuji makes face cream. If only Kodak had thought of that.
So who's gonna stock up on Porta and T-max?
Sometimes taking a hypothetical what if view helps analyse a situation...
What if...
- Kodak had make all the right decisions?
- Kodak had aggressively leveraged its digital patents?
- Kodak had teamed up with a great lens manufacturer?
- Kodak had done with digital what it did with film 100 years ago; i.e. provide the camera and all printing services, and online gallery services (i.e. Klickr rather than Flickr)?
Maybe we'd all be shooting Kodak and not PeNikCanSOly!
The transformation of Fuji and the demise of Kodak are significant markers in the global transition to digital.
Threadstarter
That WhatIf proposition would do anyone's head in.
Kodak had a massive power with it's branding, being one of the worlds leading brand names in terms of recognition.
Had they made the right decisions, and dominated the market the way they dominated film for such a long period may have lead to a stifled digital market and lacked creativity and competitiveness!
I think they seriously stuffed up with their printing technology and market presence.
Just about anyone I talk too, wants cheap prints and done at their own leisure.... as they please.
Kodak are more famous for their prints than they are for their quality and variety of films.
People associate Kodak with their printed 4x6's and 5x7 and so on. They never cared not for films themselves, they bought up Kodakcolor400 by the bootload and expected to see 36 prints afterwards.None of them will still have the negatives now.. who does? Enthusiasts do, not the mass market. The mass market is where the money is, and by extension .. the key to maintain viability.
Kodak needed to have a printing solution for mum and dad photographers to print their happy snaps in the comfort of their own homes and do it cheaply with good quality .. and to aggressively market a technology and product such as this.
Almost any and every non photography centred household will have a low end modern Canon or HP printer to do basic photo printing. They cost in the order of $90 to purchase and $500 per year to print 50 images or so. Kodak needed to capitalise on this market segment. Epson don't seem to be doing too badly at the moment. They may also have non core operations to maintain buoyancy, but they're still here, where Kodak currently aren't.
I'd say that Kodak's intrinsic value, in the power of their brand name, that they'll survive.
Polaroid was brought back from the netherworld of business a few years after their demise, and their brand name isn't as highly valued as is Kodak's.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
