mw_uio
Well-known
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_investors
I do not know what to say but, we still have film, and it is not gone yet.
Mark
Quito, Ecuador
I do not know what to say but, we still have film, and it is not gone yet.
Mark
Quito, Ecuador
amateriat
We're all light!
For the moment at least. Read this, and roll up your pants legs:
http://tinyurl.com/373zmj
We've heard it before, but I thought this would be important to share. Fingers still crossed. Pass the Kodachrome.
Edit: Thanks to my pal Dave Beckerman for the link
Barrett
http://tinyurl.com/373zmj
We've heard it before, but I thought this would be important to share. Fingers still crossed. Pass the Kodachrome.
Edit: Thanks to my pal Dave Beckerman for the link
Barrett
Last edited:
Topdog1
Well-known
When motion pcitures go digital, so will Kodak
When motion pcitures go digital, so will Kodak
Here is more from that article. Note: the future of kodak's film business depends on the future of motion picture film. When that goes digital, Kodak will say goodbye to film. Doesn't mean it will die - it just won't say "Kodak" on the box anymore.
"The company that put film cameras into nearly every home in America acknowledged in 2003 that its analog businesses were in irreversible decline. It outlined a strategy to invest in new digital markets governed by entrenched heavyweights such as HP, Seiko Epson Corp. and Canon Inc.
As it battled to outrun sliding demand for film, its century-old cash cow, Kodak embarked on a nearly $3 billion shopping spree but also ran up $2 billion in net losses over eight straight quarters. It finally snared a $16 million profit in the October-December period when, for the first time, it earned more from digital than from film, paper and other chemical-based products.
"As far as I'm concerned, Kodak is finally over the negative surprises," said Ulysses Yannas, a broker with Buckman, Buckman & Reid. "They are entering a phase where increasingly profitability starts to show.
"A year or two out from here, it will be a totally different company," with profits driven by an inkjet-printer system that "probably is a lot bigger than anybody thinks it's going to be."
"The inkjet introduction now appears to be a bet-the-company move for Kodak," said George Conboy, president of Brighton Securities, a money-management firm in Rochester, Kodak's hometown.
"If they make a go of it, it could be very successful. If they don't, they're not going to have a second chance for a second act of this magnitude because the capital will not be as easy to come by. I don't think it has to work in '07 but it needs to show concrete results in '08."
Kodak unveiled a trio of home printers Tuesday that produce documents and photos using ink cartridges that cost roughly half as much as the competition's. Analysts think the move could trigger a price war.
"We are interested in serving customers," Perez said in an interview. "They said they wanted a fair, low price for the ink because they want to print more and they want to print with freedom. What the other companies are going to do, I don't know honestly, don't care much."
Kodak's latest job cuts will bring extra restructuring charges of $400 million to $600 million, or total charges of $3.6 billion to $3.8 billion since 2004.
It is now eliminating 28,000 to 30,000 jobs by year-end, with 23,300 already axed. And the sale of its 111-year-old health unit, partly intended to help fund its $300 million-plus investment in inkjet, will strip another 8,100 jobs.
That will shrink its payroll to around 29,000, its lowest level since the 1930s. It employed 64,000 people at the end of 2003 and 145,300 in 1988.
Kodak said it expects to digital earnings from operations will reach $200 million to $300 million in 2007 on digital revenue growth of 3 percent to 5 percent.
"By the end of the third quarter, basically my hope is that we're done with all the announcements of restructurings and jobs and everything else and we're just fully concentrated on growing" more than a dozen digital ventures from cameras and online photo services to high-volume printing presses, Perez said.
While Kodak remains the world's top maker of photographic film, Perez doesn't discount someday discarding the storied business that George Eastman launched in 1881.
"Film is going to follow its own destiny," he said. "Right now, entertainment (motion-picture) imaging is very stable, is very good for the company. ... If that goes digital, which eventually I believe it will, then we'll do something else. We will do what's better for the shareholders"
/Ira
When motion pcitures go digital, so will Kodak
Here is more from that article. Note: the future of kodak's film business depends on the future of motion picture film. When that goes digital, Kodak will say goodbye to film. Doesn't mean it will die - it just won't say "Kodak" on the box anymore.
"The company that put film cameras into nearly every home in America acknowledged in 2003 that its analog businesses were in irreversible decline. It outlined a strategy to invest in new digital markets governed by entrenched heavyweights such as HP, Seiko Epson Corp. and Canon Inc.
As it battled to outrun sliding demand for film, its century-old cash cow, Kodak embarked on a nearly $3 billion shopping spree but also ran up $2 billion in net losses over eight straight quarters. It finally snared a $16 million profit in the October-December period when, for the first time, it earned more from digital than from film, paper and other chemical-based products.
"As far as I'm concerned, Kodak is finally over the negative surprises," said Ulysses Yannas, a broker with Buckman, Buckman & Reid. "They are entering a phase where increasingly profitability starts to show.
"A year or two out from here, it will be a totally different company," with profits driven by an inkjet-printer system that "probably is a lot bigger than anybody thinks it's going to be."
"The inkjet introduction now appears to be a bet-the-company move for Kodak," said George Conboy, president of Brighton Securities, a money-management firm in Rochester, Kodak's hometown.
"If they make a go of it, it could be very successful. If they don't, they're not going to have a second chance for a second act of this magnitude because the capital will not be as easy to come by. I don't think it has to work in '07 but it needs to show concrete results in '08."
Kodak unveiled a trio of home printers Tuesday that produce documents and photos using ink cartridges that cost roughly half as much as the competition's. Analysts think the move could trigger a price war.
"We are interested in serving customers," Perez said in an interview. "They said they wanted a fair, low price for the ink because they want to print more and they want to print with freedom. What the other companies are going to do, I don't know honestly, don't care much."
Kodak's latest job cuts will bring extra restructuring charges of $400 million to $600 million, or total charges of $3.6 billion to $3.8 billion since 2004.
It is now eliminating 28,000 to 30,000 jobs by year-end, with 23,300 already axed. And the sale of its 111-year-old health unit, partly intended to help fund its $300 million-plus investment in inkjet, will strip another 8,100 jobs.
That will shrink its payroll to around 29,000, its lowest level since the 1930s. It employed 64,000 people at the end of 2003 and 145,300 in 1988.
Kodak said it expects to digital earnings from operations will reach $200 million to $300 million in 2007 on digital revenue growth of 3 percent to 5 percent.
"By the end of the third quarter, basically my hope is that we're done with all the announcements of restructurings and jobs and everything else and we're just fully concentrated on growing" more than a dozen digital ventures from cameras and online photo services to high-volume printing presses, Perez said.
While Kodak remains the world's top maker of photographic film, Perez doesn't discount someday discarding the storied business that George Eastman launched in 1881.
"Film is going to follow its own destiny," he said. "Right now, entertainment (motion-picture) imaging is very stable, is very good for the company. ... If that goes digital, which eventually I believe it will, then we'll do something else. We will do what's better for the shareholders"
/Ira
Topdog1
Well-known
In defense of film by the photo editor of The Times magazine
In defense of film by the photo editor of The Times magazine
Call me a Luddite, but it's just magic
Graham Wood: Analysis
For all of my 35 years as a photographer, I have always used film. Partly it’s because I am a Luddite, partly because film is just magic.
It is a much richer medium in which to work, even though digital has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of quality. Now, with a photograph reproduced in a newspaper, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two media.
My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph.
Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated.
Of course, the huge advantage of digital is speed, but, if you have time, as I do on a weekly magazine, then there is all the time in the world to make adjustments.
Film has a lasting endurance. It is the true medium for photographers. Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?
— Graham Wood is the director of photography for The Times Magazine
In defense of film by the photo editor of The Times magazine
Call me a Luddite, but it's just magic
Graham Wood: Analysis
For all of my 35 years as a photographer, I have always used film. Partly it’s because I am a Luddite, partly because film is just magic.
It is a much richer medium in which to work, even though digital has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of quality. Now, with a photograph reproduced in a newspaper, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two media.
My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph.
Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated.
Of course, the huge advantage of digital is speed, but, if you have time, as I do on a weekly magazine, then there is all the time in the world to make adjustments.
Film has a lasting endurance. It is the true medium for photographers. Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?
— Graham Wood is the director of photography for The Times Magazine
mw_uio
Well-known
Look what CEO Mr Perez says,
He declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility.
“We will do whatever is good for this company and whatever is good for shareholders,” Mr Perez said.
The important thing too note is that "we will do whatever is good for this company and shareholders" This is the key point. Maybe FujiFilms would buy up all or some of the film business from Kodak?
Mark
Quito, Ecuador
He declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility.
“We will do whatever is good for this company and whatever is good for shareholders,” Mr Perez said.
The important thing too note is that "we will do whatever is good for this company and shareholders" This is the key point. Maybe FujiFilms would buy up all or some of the film business from Kodak?
Mark
Quito, Ecuador
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
The layoffs are part of the multi-year restructuring, and apparently the last round in the process. 2007 looks to be Kodak's make or break year with this inkjet printer and low-cost "ink" scheme they have. I think a healthier Kodak bodes well for film and film users. Support all the companies that still produce film!
R
rpsawin
Guest
RayPA said:
Thank you, Ray! If Kodak stops making film so what? There are other companies, Ilford & Fuji to name two, who are committed to film and will continue to produce it. I use some Kodak film but only as fill in. I will not depend on the Great Yellow Father as he has gotten quite fickle in his dotage.
Bob
Solinar
Analog Preferred
"Film is going to follow its own destiny," Antonio Perez
The handwriting is on the wall. Kodak is moving on and turning Rochester into a ghost town.
The handwriting is on the wall. Kodak is moving on and turning Rochester into a ghost town.
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
I have a love hate relationship with Kodak!
Taqi
Established
Motion picture film is the main factor here - still profitable with significant turnover (look at the figures in the Times article - "traditional film business will make sales of about $3.4 billion in 2007, declining to about $2.7 billion in 2008."
Now falling sales (especially to the tune of $0.7bn in a year!) is clearly not good, but that is still a pretty big turnover. Scale back, rationalise the costs and that could be a very good business. If Kodak can't be bothered with it, let them sell it to someone who can (eg Fuji). I would be interested to see what proportion of Kodaks total revenue comes from MP film - it would not surprise me without that revenue Kodak would be running at a (terminal) loss at the moment,
Now falling sales (especially to the tune of $0.7bn in a year!) is clearly not good, but that is still a pretty big turnover. Scale back, rationalise the costs and that could be a very good business. If Kodak can't be bothered with it, let them sell it to someone who can (eg Fuji). I would be interested to see what proportion of Kodaks total revenue comes from MP film - it would not surprise me without that revenue Kodak would be running at a (terminal) loss at the moment,
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I think Taqi is closest to the mark, though I sorta doubt Kodak would want to sell to Fuji. Granted there aren't a lot of other players with the $$ to buy Kodak's film division.
But the original story posted was only about the layoffs that are related to the sale of the medical imaging division to Onyx. All the rest of this is pure speculation. Phillip also posts an interesting perspective, though I'm not certain that will happen.
But the original story posted was only about the layoffs that are related to the sale of the medical imaging division to Onyx. All the rest of this is pure speculation. Phillip also posts an interesting perspective, though I'm not certain that will happen.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
Kodak will sell to Lucky.
mw_uio said:
Thanks Perez, how about doing something in the best interest of actual photogs!
sf
Veteran
and I just made the last two large item film gear purchases I will probably ever make. But, I'd have to say that I'll buy film from obscure companies in China, and I'll formulate my own chemicals before I'll call it dead forever.
wow, though. And we really can't believe any sort of optimism from the PR departments at these companies. Kodak said they saw 10 years of film production ahead...
maybe this will give more business to Ilford and Fuji, and we'll see them survive a little longer.
wow, though. And we really can't believe any sort of optimism from the PR departments at these companies. Kodak said they saw 10 years of film production ahead...
maybe this will give more business to Ilford and Fuji, and we'll see them survive a little longer.
Last edited:
sigma4ever
MF
It's simple. If Kodak is going to abandon us, why support it? I don't want to put my money into something that is planning on rolling over and dying. I second the motion to support the real photographic supply companies such as Ilford. Ilford obviously has more concern and focus on their products than Kodak. So, even if Kodak doesn't shut down their film sect of their corporation completely, I am still going to other sources. Other film and photographic supply industries are focused on just film and paper. Kodak has split to an almost 8:2 ratio of digital to film. Which will have the better product? As I have said, I will not support kodak if I can help it.
sf
Veteran
sigma4ever said:
Ilford made a strong effort to save itself - via a pretty hairy strategy. We should write them a thank you letter.
Fuji too. Maybe RFF should pool together and invest in some equipment for manufacturing B&W film. Everybody come together!
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
There was a thread two weeks ago about Kodak closing down its last film developping lab in France. When I commented that I felt Kodak was going to abandon film, there were people on this forum protesting that Kodak was highly commited to film as film was part of the company's identity, they made good profit on film, blah, blah...
Sadly, the movement towards total abandon of analog technology by Kodak seems confirmed. As Kodak has never been able to sell a really successful digital camera, I guess Mr. Kobayashi shall be able to buy the Kodak brand in a few years...
Cheers,
Abbazz
Sadly, the movement towards total abandon of analog technology by Kodak seems confirmed. As Kodak has never been able to sell a really successful digital camera, I guess Mr. Kobayashi shall be able to buy the Kodak brand in a few years...
Cheers,
Abbazz
rvaubel
Well-known
Topdog1 said:
Yes
Rex
Topdog1
Well-known
Abbazz said:
I believe Kodak is actually rated #3 by market share for consumer digital cameras. They have been very successful with their digital cameras, although maybe not to the users who frequent this forum.
/Ira
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Topdog1 said:
it surprised me when I read this in the WSJ article earlier this week.
.