Analysts on Kodak

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you missed it--

 

US National Public Radio carried a story Wednesday evening 8/2 on Kodak's current status:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5602044

 

Two analysts differ on Kodak's future: One says he wouldn't be surprised to see the company dry up and disappear; the other says Kodak has discovered the way to make money in the digital age: the thermal ribbon.

 

Any opinions on the forum? (Dare I ask?)

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bob Ross]

Kodak is a very diverse company and much of it is in areas where the general public isn't the customer. It would be best to look at their annual report (10K), if you are really concerned. They are certainly in an awkward transition that seems to be dragging on in the consumer areas. Will they go the route of Agfa, Ilford & Konica or continue to sqirm like Fujifilm?

[ho_co]

Kodak is a very diverse company and much of it is in areas where the general public isn't the customer. It would be best to look at their annual report (10K), if you are really concerned.

Bob--

Thanks for reminding me that the consumer business is just the tip of the iceberg for Kodak. I'm not concerned for my financial interest or even that much for Kodak. What interests me is that although they both look only at the consumer business, the two analysts have completely different slants--and neither speaks to the photographic world I live in.

 

One says the public isn't interested in paper prints any more, but I think most 'serious' photographers do make paper prints, just not at the drugstore.

 

The other says Kodak's thermal ribbon is their key to success; that may be so for the kiosks which the first analyst tossed into the dump heap, but I don't know many folks who are doing dye-sub at home.

 

One says Kodak's cameras and marketing are more attractive to women and implies that that will be Kodak's salvation. Neither touches on digital projection.

 

Kodak has been out of the b/w paper business, and now Durst quits enlargers. Agfa was producing film and paper up to the day before its demise. Was the company that bought the final production smart to have done so, or just burdening itself with a good product it isn't going to be able to sell either?

 

In short, I think the collective wisdom of the members of this forum may be a great deal better than that of the analysts interviewed, and maybe the tea leaves of Kodak's latest numbers and production decisions can be better read here.

 

They are certainly in an awkward transition that seems to be dragging on in the consumer areas. Will they go the route of Agfa, Ilford & Konica or continue to sqirm like Fujifilm?

The interview in LFI 5/2006 certainly shows the different personalities of the companies still around; your image of watching them 'squirm' may unfortunately be more apt than we know.

 

--HC

[spylaw4]

 

The other says Kodak's thermal ribbon is their key to success; that may be so for the kiosks which the first analyst tossed into the dump heap, but I don't know many folks who are doing dye-sub at home.

--HC

 

And just as I was considering whether I should get a Kodak 1400 dye-sub printer! Monitoring the very few that appear on eBay in the UK there certainly seems to be demand for them.

For inkjet printing, apart from the expensive 2400, what's the collective or indeed diverse view as to the best inkjet photo printer?

[Guest flatfour]

When I was at Ford in finance I met an analyst from a broker. He could read balance sheets upside down, could tear the P&L apart ,and carried his own Facit calculator - and anyone who has used one of those knows how heavy they are - he could extrapolate, permutate and everything else to do with figures. My boss asked him whether Ford should consider front wheel drive or stick with rear wheel drive. The guy said "whats front wheel drive ? ". Sums it up really.

[adan]

I have to giggle every time I hear Kodak's CEO talk about their transition to digital - seems like Kodak has discontinued more digital products than they have film products (in and out of DSLRs, in and out of MF digital backs, in and out of film scanners and digital photo workstations, in and out of PhotoCDs (remember PhotoCDs?)

 

At least (for Leica's sake) they are still making CCDs.

 

I think Kodak is going down the same path as IBM - they are faced with a big paradigm shift, they have made many of the innovations that led to the paradigm shift - but they are so tied to short-term results that they cannot or will not leverage ther innovations and take the short/medium-term losses needed to stick with a strategy and develop and conquer the market they created. They're wandering all over the market looking for the quick buck.

 

Typical American investor-driven business shortsightedness (Note: I am American!)

[john_f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HC,

 

Thank you for posting this news about Kodak. It's quite a coincidence because I had just read in DigitalCamera.jp and DigiTimes daily IT news that Kodak was getting out of the manufacturing and distribution of consumer digital cameras.

 

Looking at the photo business for the past few years, digital has been nothing but red ink, and not just for Kodak. Even Fuji has admitted that they are hurting (but nowhere near as bad as Kodak). Sony experienced major losses over a year ago and had to take sharp measures to curtail their problems. And of course, a number of well-known names are gone (Konica, Minolta, Bronica, Contax, Kyocera, Agfa). As for Kodak, each new CEO has promised to turn things around. Sadly, none of them has managed to live up to their promise(s) - so far at least.

 

I think Leica might have seen the writing on the wall when they decided to switch to a new partner for the sensor to be used in the M8. I'm not entirely sure what role Kodak ISS will continue to play with the new Leica Camera management (we might even see a new "DMR Mk II" with a new sensor made by Jenoptik - who knows..)

 

In any case, if you want to know more about this new agreement between Kodak and FLEXTRONICS, have a look at these links:

Flextronics

DigitalCamera.jp

Kodak-Flextronics deal may negatively impact Altek

Kodak announces agreement with Flextronics for its consumer digital cameras

 

Cheers,

John F.

[pekem]

And just as I was considering whether I should get a Kodak 1400 dye-sub printer! Monitoring the very few that appear on eBay in the UK there certainly seems to be demand for them.

For inkjet printing, apart from the expensive 2400, what's the collective or indeed diverse view as to the best inkjet photo printer?

 

Never mind the Ink Jet; if you are not wanting greater sizes than the output of the Kodak 1400 I would say buy one. I have used one for a long time now and would not want to go back to Ink Jet. For the use I have for a printer which is not enormous the Kodak is ideal.

I have rarely needed to reject a print and so the costs of printing have been lower than I was able to achieve with my Epson and the Kodak quality is more than satisfactory.

[ho_co]

Looking at the photo business for the past few years, digital has been nothing but red ink, and not just for Kodak...

John--

Thanks for the input. I wasn't aware of Fuji's problems, had just assumed since I'm not seeing as much negative news on them, that they were sailing smoothly into this strange new world.

 

As the Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times." Looks as if the traditional photo business at all levels is learning what that means.

 

--HC

[Bob Ross]

"Looking at the photo business for the past few years, digital has been nothing but red ink, and not just for Kodak."

John, That is a good obsevation. The "cash cow bubble" of the overpriced consumer digicam was very good for balance sheets, but it began deflating about two years ago as lower priced DSLRs began to arrive. The drive for DSLRs was made by those companies that made lenses, where the traditional profits were made. Those profits never were part of Kodak or Fujifilm's financial picture, and their DSLR adventures were never as profitable as Canon, Nikon or Olympus. For the new players, Sony & Samsung outsource there lens fabrication, but Panasonic do theirs in house. Leica is new to digital of their own, but I suspect that Leica made more money from sales of their lenses than bodies (well, they did with me...). The good news for digital is that there are areas in the world where film is reluctant to go and customers wait to be converted to digital. One of those areas, strangely enough, is Japan and I just heard that Kodak digital products seem to have disappeared from dealer shelves there. Is something up?

Bob

[jtharvie]

I bought my daughter a Canon 710 dye sub printer and she has had more fun with it and used her images from her Lumix P&S than she would have without it. She has sent all sorts of personalized postcards with her images around the country and is looking to get the shoulder bag to take the camera and printer with her everywhere. The quality is very good and I am trying to find where I can buy a Panasonic KX-PX1, I could have some real fun with that piece of kit! The point being, there is still a market for the home printer/developer and Kodak can tap into what I suspect could become a lucritive market with the right marketing.

jth

[Bob Ross]

The point being, there is still a market for the home printer/developer and Kodak can tap into what I suspect could become a lucritive market with the right marketing.

jth

I have a friend who bought a complete Kodak P&S kit with the docking printer and just loves it. For the snap shooter, Kodak does know how to make it easy. In the stores that I frequent, the Kodak dye-sub supplies are the most predominant. As I recall, I saw where there are now adapters for other brands of P&S cameras for Kodak's docking printer. Plunk you camera down, push a button, get your print, send it to gandma (she doesn't have a computer)....

[ho_co]

For the snap shooter, Kodak does know how to make it easy. In the stores that I frequent, the Kodak dye-sub supplies are the most predominant.

Bob--

Thanks for the info. I'm not seeing the dye-sub supplies though I've personally been tempted by their 1400 Digital Dye-Sub printer. I guess I need to open my eyes wider .

 

You're right about 'making it easy.' I've had three different Kodak digital cameras, all of which made good images, and did so with simple instruction manuals; i.e. they were planned to work well without the need for a user's understanding exactly what he was doing. Compare for example both the D-Lux 2 and the D200, which include help screens just in case the user isn't quite clear about what a function is supposed to do for him .

 

Kodak does a good job of what they do (Kodachrome, for example, or Photo CDs). I just wish they wouldn't drop a product line about the time I decide it really is the way to go. But then, that may just be a sign of my slow uptake...

 

--HC

[Guest flatfour]

So many household names are now in trouble it makes me wonder about my computer. How long will Apple last ? How long for Epson ? We are now down to only two volume DSLR makers (Leica will never be volume)

[Bob Ross]

Kodak does a good job of what they do (Kodachrome, for example, or Photo CDs). I just wish they wouldn't drop a product line about the time I decide it really is the way to go. But then, that may just be a sign of my slow uptake...

 

--HC

That seems to be the nature of Kodak going back into the thirties. They seem to dabble and get it good, but have a quick trigger to kill it before the product matures into the market. They once had a competator to the Leica in their Ektra and rather than building on it, they just let it die. They also had a professional 6 X 9 RF in the Medalist that was rugged enough for combat situations and it died after the II model and there were the neat Retinas and, of course, their DSLRs. They seem to be market experimentors instead of market standards and "long haul" isn't in their vocabulary. But we know their name and watch movies on their film...

Bob

[spylaw4]

Never mind the Ink Jet; if you are not wanting greater sizes than the output of the Kodak 1400 I would say buy one. I have used one for a long time now and would not want to go back to Ink Jet. For the use I have for a printer which is not enormous the Kodak is ideal.

I have rarely needed to reject a print and so the costs of printing have been lower than I was able to achieve with my Epson and the Kodak quality is more than satisfactory.

Thanks for that endorsement of the 1400. I've also been looking at the Hi-Touch range (730PL) which seem to be getting very good comments. The supplies also seem to be a bit more economical as does the initial outlay!

[pierovitch]

I have a wall at work where I place test prints. All the prints have faded in normal office lighting including dye sublimation prints. The only print that has not visibly faded is a Cibachrome print. I have been doing this for about 20 years. Some inkjets only lasted a few months. I have the colour prints from my first instamatic camera from the late 60's kept in an album still in good condition plus all those Kodachromes since. Will our digital memories disappear as fast as the companies now marketing the concept?

As for business. Size, market share, and innovation does not make a company survive only net profit can do this.

 

Cheers Pierre