AlanG Posted November 3, 2011 Share #21 Posted November 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Seriously? Was Kodak prepared to create a village for the workers, and then impose moral and social restrictions as Pullman did? Did Kodak suggest that they would own the employees' salary in trade for housing and health? Tell us more. They meant they did not want to be a large company that suddenly found its products to be obsolete. I don't have a clue what the Pullman Car company did with its workers and I doubt that the Kodak people at that lunch did either. It is just an expression. They could have said "buggy whip" company. In any case, they didn't want to be like Pullman anyway so what are you getting at by bringing up Pullman's dark side? Is that relevant somehow or did you simply misread the sentence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Discussion on Kodak on Radio 4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted November 3, 2011 Share #22 Posted November 3, 2011 Talking about film, all I keep hearing is how all theatres will be (or have to) switch over to digital projection. Movies will still be recorded on film, it's just the theatres will get the movies digitally. I can't imagine the hit Kodak or Fuji will take with that. Kodak had designed laser projectors for theaters. So they have come up with good replacement technology. It is hard to see how sales of projectors can make up for the loss of film sales for theatrical release prints and motion picture stock. In my reading of Kodak's 3rd quarter statement it is clear to me that they are not pinning hopes for their future on film and processing that they state is a rapidly declining business. They say they are looking for sales of patents to provide them enough short term money to keep the company going until they start making money selling more ink to the commercial and consumer customers who are buying their printers. And the revenue from film and processing has decreased to the point that they have a more severe cash problem than they anticipated. So why is it hard for some to grasp this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 4, 2011 Share #23 Posted November 4, 2011 We've been cleaning up the shop and reorganizing, and in moving old stuff around, I've been reminded that up until about 1980, Kodak owned photography in the U.S. - and probably a lot of the rest of the world except where local interest prevailed (Agfa in Germany, Ilford in the UK, Fuji in Japan). Chemicals, batteries, thermometers, filters (gel and glass, printing and shooting), slide mounts, slide projectors, 8/16mm splicing tape, amateur movie film (color and B&W), movie projectors, and (yes, Alan) even cameras - Brownies, Hawkeyes, Retina Reflexes and rangefinders, Ekta-something-or-other 8mm cameras, Ektar-lensed press cameras. Kodak was the massest of mass-consumer companies, with total vertical integration. One could go a whole lifetime in photography for most of the 20th century without ever touching a non-Kodak product. I think they just couldn't figure out how to exist without being (or could not envision themselves as anything but) a "mass-market" company. 15-20 years ago, had Kodak bought: Apple, Adobe, Imacon or PhaseOne, and outbid Sony for Konica/Minolta (perhaps not politically possible) - and then grabbed ownership of internet photography by setting up their own "disruptive technology branch" to out-facebook Facebook and out-flickr Flickr (not to mention Youtube and Vimeo) - they might possibly have retained something of their mass, vertically integrated hold on the market. (Assuming they didn't screw them up with a corporate mindset). Instead, they dabbled in a few of these areas (often with great innovation) but eventually let them slip away because the markets were not "mass" enough. They weren't what Kodak "did." Which leaves them with inkjet printing as the remnant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 4, 2011 Share #24 Posted November 4, 2011 and (yes, Alan) even cameras - Brownies, Hawkeyes, Retina Reflexes and rangefinders, Ekta-something-or-other 8mm cameras, Ektar-lensed press cameras. Kodak was the massest of mass-consumer companies, with total vertical integration. One could go a whole lifetime in photography for most of the 20th century without ever touching a non-Kodak product. I was talking about them not being a camera and lens company now, not way back when. And they are not a consumer electronics company either. I know Kodak very well. I used to own an 8x10 Kodak Commercial all metal view camera, Commercial Ektars, various Retinas, Medalists, and numerous other Kodak products. I printed with Ektar enlarging lenses in school and used a Kodak video analyzer. But by the time they started making DSLR's they had to depend on Nikon, Canon, and Sigma for their bodies and did not make any lenses for these cameras either. Thus they were destined to be at a competitive disadvantage in the DSLR body market and didn't have the revenue from the sale of lenses which is considered the more lucrative part of the 35mm camera business. So that was not a viable option for them either. Kodak also had the opportunity to own Xerox and Polaroid when they started but may have been concerned to expand in such ways as they could be viewed as a monopoly. I totally agree with you that Kodak missed the boat on numerous occasions and there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda about them. And Xerox could have been bigger than Apple and HP combined and Digital Research could have been Microsoft... and if only I had bought stock in XYZ company back in 92. If they sell the patents and then blow through that money next year trying to get the ink jet business and some other things to take off, but they fail. What does that leave for the stock holders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 4, 2011 Share #25 Posted November 4, 2011 Unfortunately that's not true. The major movie camera manufacturers have stopped production of film cameras... Film Fading to Black - Creative COW Fortuntily, 35mm motion picture cameras will still be around and most directors don't want to shoot on digital. Film is going to be around for a long long time. Kodak: film No Compromise Film Archive VS digital KODAK: Protect your image by archiving on film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 4, 2011 Share #26 Posted November 4, 2011 Instead, they dabbled in a few of these areas (often with great innovation) but eventually let them slip away because the markets were not "mass" enough. They weren't what Kodak "did." Which leaves them with inkjet printing as the remnant. Sadly, Kodak are not "mass" enough in inkjet printing. Throwing all their chips in hoping to muscle in on the market owned by Epson and hp strikes me as a terrible gamble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 4, 2011 Share #27 Posted November 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fortuntily, 35mm motion picture cameras will still be around and most directors don't want to shoot on digital Panavision for example is a rental only company and they are halting manufacture of film cameras. My assumption is that demand for them is ebbing away. As with photographic film, movies shot on film will probably be around for a long time, but as a niche product. One person in the article I linked to estimated that film is already down to a 30-40% market share. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 4, 2011 Share #28 Posted November 4, 2011 Sadly, Kodak are not "mass" enough in inkjet printing. Throwing all their chips in hoping to muscle in on the market owned by Epson and hp strikes me as a terrible gamble. Yes that seemed odd to me also. But I think they are also looking more to the commercial inkjet business. Some time ago they bought Encad, one of the major players in that market. I'm not sure if they bought anyone else. I think they see profit from ink as a film replacement in their business model. They do other things in commercial printing too, but the loss for this division widened last quarter so who knows? I do remember that Kodak developed APS and sold the manufacturers and labs on it - just before digital came out. They also figured everyone would get their pictures scanned onto PhotoCDs. They expected to sell a lot of PhotoCD players and the associated lab equipment. They pioneered a lot of this technology. It isn't as if they put their head in the sand and didn't try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 4, 2011 Share #29 Posted November 4, 2011 Sadly, Kodak are not "mass" enough in inkjet printing. Throwing all their chips in hoping to muscle in on the market owned by Epson and hp strikes me as a terrible gamble. Well, keep in mind Kodak's idea of inkjet printing includes "printing presses" as large as a room, not just Epson/HP-sized desktops. See their PROSPER line. But I agree in general. I doubt there will be a Kodak printer on practically everyone's desk, the way there used to be Tri-X and Kodachrome in practically everyone's camera bag. To Alan - I wasn't intending to play "shoulda coulda." I was just pointing out what would have been required for Kodak to retain at least a semblence of their mastery of the photo market. I doubt anyone "coulda" - in reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 4, 2011 Share #30 Posted November 4, 2011 Kodak were, for a short while, a major player in digital - especially for cheaper P&S digicams, but how often do you see them on the retailers shelves (real or virtual!) now? Clearly they have failed to keep up with the competition. It seems like they are about to make another 'APS' decision moving heavily into inkjet products at a time when Internet useage is booming with more people using social media and social media marketing, and more people using smartphones to access such sites. The need/use of printed material is a declining market. Without their income from film sales I doubt they'd still be around right now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 4, 2011 Share #31 Posted November 4, 2011 They meant they did not want to be a large company that suddenly found its products to be obsolete. I don't have a clue what the Pullman Car company did with its workers and I doubt that the Kodak people at that lunch did either. It is just an expression. They could have said "buggy whip" company. In any case, they didn't want to be like Pullman anyway so what are you getting at by bringing up Pullman's dark side? Is that relevant somehow or did you simply misread the sentence? "Kodak execs and they said their goal was to keep Kodak from being the Pullman Sleeping car company of the 21st century." Miscommunication. One should ask Kodak what they meant by the Pullman reference. Please do not take my words personally. I will leave it to you to research "Pullman Community". A good start is here. Read down. The section on social dynamics is quite interesting. While one reads, it is good to remember that George Eastman was the first to be so generous to his employees that he even created profit sharing for them, and he had a philanthropic character that extended into the public. Perhaps, just perhaps Kodak's statement is deeply political: they do not want to be obligated to continue the spirit that George Eastman initiated. But using Pullman as an example was a bad idea, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 4, 2011 Share #32 Posted November 4, 2011 [... snip good stuff]I do remember that Kodak developed APS and sold the manufacturers and labs on it - just before digital came out. They also figured everyone would get their pictures scanned onto PhotoCDs. They expected to sell a lot of PhotoCD players and the associated lab equipment. They pioneered a lot of this technology. It isn't as if they put their head in the sand and didn't try. True. Today, when a large, unwieldy company tries to innovate they often use the management model of their former self - from a company of sustained but modest growth instead of using a model which must spin on a dime (disruptive technology) or die gracefully - and with less expense. That's what spin-offs are for. Look to the history of the disc drive market for excellent examples of company failures like Kodak had. Look to Apple's near demise. The shock of their failure under Mr. Pepsi and the return of Steve Jobs brought about massive reorganization and paring of products (IOW, the rationalization of their product line, termination of wrong-headed Board members) which all helped saved Apple. It turned from the old sustaining model to a disruptive model. Apple was reinvented. Kodak tried no such thing. Maybe Leica's savior is Blackstone - not a spin-off, really, but it isolates Leica to continue its Herald as an example of "Made in Germany" and the Blackstone contribution will be used for its internationalized branding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 4, 2011 Share #33 Posted November 4, 2011 I think what may be most pertinent to this forum is that Kodak's "turn around" plan didn't mention film or sensor technology as assets to be further developed or sold. So who knows what the future of those products will be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 4, 2011 Share #34 Posted November 4, 2011 I think what may be most pertinent to this forum is that Kodak's "turn around" plan didn't mention film or sensor technology as assets to be further developed or sold. So who knows what the future of those products will be? The film division of Kodak is still making a lot of money even though that amount is currently dropping each year. The amount of profit it makes may not be enough for Kodak, though it would be a dream for another company to take over. I can still see film holding it's own, though it may have to be operated (sold) to another company? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 4, 2011 Share #35 Posted November 4, 2011 . I can still see film holding it's own, though it may have to be operated (sold) to another company? That is what I was getting at. Did Kodak mention this as a possibility somewhere? If so I didn't see it. So the prospects for selling this may not be so bright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted November 4, 2011 Share #36 Posted November 4, 2011 The film division of Kodak is still making a lot of money even though that amount is currently dropping each year. The amount of profit it makes may not be enough for Kodak, though it would be a dream for another company to take over. Why would any company want to invest in declining returns that have no perceptible floor? Kodak's film earnings are not declining because of Kodak, but because the market for film is shrinking. Anyone else will likely have to stomach the same decline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 4, 2011 Share #37 Posted November 4, 2011 Are other film companies such as Ilford and the smaller European ones all losing money? Let's face it, colour film is pretty much on its last legs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 4, 2011 Share #38 Posted November 4, 2011 That is what I was getting at. Did Kodak mention this as a possibility somewhere? If so I didn't see it. So the prospects for selling this may not be so bright. If not sell it off, have it run under the umbrella as separate corporation??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 4, 2011 Share #39 Posted November 4, 2011 Why would any company want to invest in declining returns that have no perceptible floor? Because the current profits from the film division is more than what most startups make in five years. And most of those go out of business within the first year. Those profits would benefit a smaller company in a huge way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 4, 2011 Share #40 Posted November 4, 2011 Are other film companies such as Ilford and the smaller European ones all losing money? It's not that long ago that Ilford were on the verge of going bust... Ilford saved from a photo finish - Telegraph Welcome to ILFORD PHOTO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.