Kodak on 10 Brands that will Disappear in 2010 List

[palec]

Well, if Kodak will die, Leica will follow... so far no other company is willing to develop digital sensors with such specific requirements.

 

[nikku]

Being able to shoot for the next year does not make my hundreds of old cameras any more useful to me. Making the rational decision to winnow the herd down to the few cameras that actually interest me is not in any way an indicator that I think badly of film quality. This isn't about isms, it's simple practicality. I'm glad there will be buyers for my stuff in the short term. I don't want to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

I guess it's different for me since I got into photography in the early aughts, when the digital revolution was in full effect and everybody was selling off their film gear. I spent very little money for some great gear, and have followed that line of logic ever since. Plus, I keep my herd thin as I go. Like I said, if the price is right, you definitely have a buyer.

Once the film is gone, I guess I'll just have to continue shooting my dslr! (sucks because new lenses for that sucker are way more expensive.)

 

[bmattock]

Actually Blockbuster came in right after Borders. I agree, that would have been strange to not see them there. I can't remember the last time I actually went into one of those video stores. Isn't it odd how quickly that common life experience just sort of disappeared for most people?

I've been experimenting with Redbox lately. Owned by McDonalds, placed in many grocery stores in this part of the country. Rent for a buck, pick up and return where you buy your groceries. I can even reserve and pay online and be sure my movie will be in the box when I get to the store - just swipe my card and get my movie and go.

It's an interesting business model - they don't have a huge catalog, but they have probably the most requested movies (except that some studios apparently won't give them access, since they rent for a buck). Like the new grocery store models I've been seeing lately - instead of the 100,000 most shopped items, try the 10,000 most shopped, make the store smaller, keep it stocked, keep prices down. Like a cross between a super market and a convenience store, something in the middle.

I don't know if Redbox will have a long life ahead of it, since I think all retail rental of movies is highly tied to whenever online delivery of movies becomes more feasible, but I am having fun with it. Blockbuster? Haven't been in one for years and years.

 

[Al Patterson]

Actually Blockbuster came in right after Borders. I agree, that would have been strange to not see them there. I can't remember the last time I actually went into one of those video stores. Isn't it odd how quickly that common life experience just sort of disappeared for most people?

Somehow, I skipped right past Borders and Blockbuster. While I won't miss Blockbuster, Borders is where I go when I don't order from Amazon. I like their stores better than B&N, but alas, I'm in the minority.

 

[bmattock]

I guess it's different for me since I got into photography in the early aughts, when the digital revolution was in full effect and everybody was selling off their film gear. I spent very little money for some great gear, and have followed that line of logic ever since. Plus, I keep my herd thin as I go. Like I said, if the price is right, you definitely have a buyer.

Once the film is gone, I guess I'll just have to continue shooting my dslr! (sucks because new lenses for that sucker are way more expensive.)

I started in the mid 1960's, so naturally with film. It was only in recent years that I bought up lots of cheap older film gear, stuff I could not afford when it was new. It was cheap enough to simply buy it to play with, but I'm not a serious collector, nor do I shoot enough film to justify more than a couple film bodies. I will keep my Canon FL and FD bodies and lenses, for sentimental reasons if nothing else. I am trying to steel myself to dump the most of rest, and pronto.

I like my Pentax system because I can keep on using my lenses on digital bodies, no problems. Same for my old M42 glass. The rest has to go.

 

[btgc]

Whether they are making money on film isn't the point. There is the tipping point where it is no longer profitable overall for the company.

That's where I agree. Manufacturers this days don't passively respond to demand, they actively make consumers thinking they are choosing while in fact consumers are orchestrated by industries.

You want to buy old trusty Volkswagen, which "runs, runs and runs", as they advertised them? Nope, you can get modern car not going over certain mileage limit just because resource is limited by design and materials. Back then technology limited resource because it weren't too advanced, today's advanced technologies allow to build car fast and cheap, while resource is planned for...maybe five years, on average?

I wouldn't wonder if big brains in glass buildings would decide to move photography market to next, more dispensable technology level.

 

[antiquark]

I'm one of the only people here who consistently backs up my claims with facts - or at least facts as I see them.

The problem with this argument is that nobody has all the facts. (Well, some people do, but not here at RFF.)

For example, Kodak makes film for aerial photography. How much does kodak sell? Who buys it? Does it sell it to the military for their spy planes? I doubt the military will disclose how much film it uses for spy photography.

That's the type of factor that throws a wrench into otherwise logical arguments.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course.

What I mean is that when someone challenges you to 'prove it' so you spend a few hours digging through the rubble to pick out the gems that do indeed prove it, post them, and the person who made the challenge then either refuses to respond or simply sniffs that they don't like the source you used, so they reject the entire thing, it can make one a tad...irritated.

I'm one of the only people here who consistently backs up my claims with facts - or at least facts as I see them. Some others just post whatever rattles around in their punkin heads and 'prove' their points by simply repeating them over and over.

When you get right down to it, there's only about fifty or so discussions that can be had on RFF, and once you've taken part in all of them, the rest are just repeats.

Dear Bill,

Perhaps 'peevish' is a better word?

(I'm not arguing with the basic point).

Cheers,

R.

 

[nikku]

I started in the mid 1960's, so naturally with film. It was only in recent years that I bought up lots of cheap older film gear, stuff I could not afford when it was new. It was cheap enough to simply buy it to play with, but I'm not a serious collector, nor do I shoot enough film to justify more than a couple film bodies. I will keep my Canon FL and FD bodies and lenses, for sentimental reasons if nothing else. I am trying to steel myself to dump the most of rest, and pronto.

I like my Pentax system because I can keep on using my lenses on digital bodies, no problems. Same for my old M42 glass. The rest has to go.

Hang on to those FD and FL lenses, with the advent of mirrorless EVIL cameras they will be the next hot item for legacy lens shooters.

 

[photogdave]

Video stores are like camera stores. General consumers go with whatever is cheapest and most convenient. It used to be big box stores but they are easily supplanted by the internet. The cognoscenti still go to the independent shops with the knowledgeable, interested staff who get to know their customers personally and be helpful in guiding them to the best choice.
We are very fortunate to have many camera, video rental and record stores that offer this kind of service. I have no need to shop at big box stores or the internet for any of my interests.

 

[bmattock]

Hang on to those FD and FL lenses, with the advent of mirrorless EVIL cameras they will be the next hot item for legacy lens shooters.

I will hold on to them of course, but the thought of using them at double their current focal length (crop factor) doesn't really excite me. I might find some pleasure if they could be used on, say, the new Samgung NX10 with an APS-C sized sensor or some camera like that. I've also seen some people butcher them to mount on current dSLR cameras, but that thought leaves me cold.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

Perhaps 'peevish' is a better word?

(I'm not arguing with the basic point).

Cheers,

R.

Fair enough; 'peevish' it is.

 

[bmattock]

The problem with this argument is that nobody has all the facts. (Well, some people do, but not here at RFF.)

For example, Kodak makes film for aerial photography. How much does kodak sell? Who buys it? Does it sell it to the military for their spy planes? I doubt the military will disclose how much film it uses for spy photography.

That's the type of factor that throws a wrench into otherwise logical arguments.

I agree, and I certainly don't claim to be in control of all the facts. However, I make market research a hobby, I try to keep track of what's going on, I read incessantly, I even have contacts within the industry who tell me things from time to time. What I seldom run into is someone with opposing viewpoints who has actually done any research at all. Is half-informed better than uninformed? Perhaps not, but it's the best I can do.

 

[chris00nj]

I don't understand the comments which say that Kodak is losing money on film. Are they privy to more information that the rest of us?

2009 3rd Quarter 10-Q - Net Earnings (Loss) from Continuing Operatations, (Millions)
Consumer Digital - ($89)
Film & Photofinishing - $47
Graphic Communication - $10
Other - ($10)

Having revenue drop, and "losing money" are two different things. While film sales are dropping, Kodak have also cut expenses. Film is a mature product and I imagine they get high enough margins off of it.

I doubt KKR is going to close the most profitable product line. ( I can see them breaking Kodak up into a few pieces, likely along the major product groups)

As long as there is demand for film, so someone will supply that demand. It's the beauty of capitalism. If Kodak and Fuji bailed, some other manufacturer will step in.

 

[chris00nj]

I own Kodak stock, so I certainly don't want to see it go down, but I'm up more than double what I paid for it, so this might give me the opportunity to buy some more if news like this forces an artificial dip in stock price.

I find it rather amusing, some of the attitudes that prevail. I haven't seen the "who cares, Kodak sucks, let them die" post yet, but I presume someone will make it shortly.

I also haven't seen the posts from the folks who argued just a few short months ago that Kodak was making money on film, and only losing money because they foolishly tried to get into the digital camera market. I presume they'll be along shortly too.

We also have not heard from those who believe that since Kodak supplies most of the movie industry with film, and the movie industry has been in no huge hurry to convert to digital, that film *must* survive, and therefore it *will* survive, with Kodak making it of course.

And finally, where are the people who continually claim that as long as there is demand, there will be supply? Even though that canard is patently untrue, they sure like to say it. They never turn up at the wake to repeat their statement when the doors close, though. Wonder why?

What's your point? You seem to bash both posters who will say that Kodak will die and bash posters who give reasons that Kodak or film will remain.

 

[bmattock]

Having revenue drop, and "losing money" are two different things. While film sales are dropping, Kodak have also cut expenses. Film is a mature product and I imagine they get high enough margins off of it.

Film sales have dropped by 30% per year, year on year, for over five years now. That cannot continue in a viable product.

I doubt KKR is going to close the most profitable product line. ( I can see them breaking Kodak up into a few pieces, likely along the major product groups)

Kodak is not profitable.

As long as there is demand for film, so someone will supply that demand. It's the beauty of capitalism. If Kodak and Fuji bailed, some other manufacturer will step in.

As I predicted, someone states it. It's a vile canard, a basic misunderstanding of capitalism, an oft-repeated untruth.

I demand that the next elevator I step into have an operator running it.

So where is the operator? There isn't one? But how can that be, there is demand?

The fact is, that supply stops just before demand drops to zero, as the price required to service remaining demand continues to climb until the demand will no longer pay the price required. Demand is always unsatisfied. THAT is a basic law of business.

If demand were willing to pay ANY price for supply, then yes, demand would always create supply. But no one here will pay $100 a roll for 35mm film, and precious few will pay $15 a roll. At some point, the trade-off is no longer worth it to the consumer, and remaining demand goes unmet.

Manufacturers do not WANT to be the last to provide supply either, lest they be stuck with unsellable surplus when the demand is gone entirely. They would much prefer to leave demand on the table and walk away with no inventory.

And consider that any company has finite capital to invest, and expects a return on their investment. When a company can make widgets other than photographic film and make a higher rate of return, or sell a larger volume, they will rationally choose that over producing film. It might indeed be profitable, but not profitable enough, or not have enough volume to make it worth their while.

And as for new companies who might hope to jump in, they have to begin from the basis of understanding that they are serving a market that will never grow, and can only shrink. Who will build the multi-million-dollar factory necessary to service a market that absolutely positively will be gone in a fairly short period of time?

Demand goes unrequited all the time. That's a basic fact, there's no changing it. Quoting an old falsehood doesn't change it.

 

[bmattock]

What's your point? You seem to bash both posters who will say that Kodak will die and bash posters who give reasons that Kodak or film will remain.

I enjoy it when the same people bash Kodak for being a horrible company and wish death upon it, and then state it will never die. If they were different people, it would not be so amusing.

 

[johannielscom]

Maybe Tom A. has found the best angle on shooting Kodak in 35mm cameras with the cine film he's shooting with them.

I'm a Kodak kinda man, E100G, Tmax and Kodacolor. B&W I can manage just fine with Ilford and Fomapan as well, even Efke and Rollei, but color... if it ain't Kodak, it's not gonna be anything. Fuji and me don't relate, somehow.

 

[Jamie123]

Unfortunately, the argument that film is better than digital, while true, is irrelevant because we who care about quality are not the market. The average Joe Nose-Picker is the market, and Joe doesn't give two figs about quality; he cares about price, convenience, and wow-factor, more or less in that order. Superior quality means nothing when the major market factors choose based on other criteria.

Yeah, but I think (optimistically) we could still have film around for another 10 years or so. Let's take Polaroid for example. The "average Joe Nose-Picker" has not been using Polaroid for a very, very long time yet it has only "died" recently (and I'm ignoring "the impossible project" for now).

I do strongly believe that the film market could stay viable without the "average joe" to support it. What worries me a bit is that I'm seeing more and more photographers who love film (me included) slowly make the transition to digital. Digital is different from film but I think we're all slowly getting used to it. And it's not only that we're getting used to it but the technology is also getting better and cheaper.

 

[bmattock]

Yeah, but I think (optimistically) we could still have film around for another 10 years or so. Let's take Polaroid for example. The "average Joe Nose-Picker" has not been using Polaroid for a very, very long time yet it has only "died" recently (and I'm ignoring "the impossible project" for now).

I do strongly believe that the film market could stay viable without the "average joe" to support it. What worries me a bit is that I'm seeing more and more photographers who love film (me included) slowly make the transition to digital. Digital is different from film but I think we're all slowly getting used to it. And it's not only that we're getting used to it but the technology is also getting better and cheaper.

My thought for some time has been that color film is doomed. Slide film first, then color print. B&W film has more current manufacturers and a lower technological bar to produce; plus it retains its distinction from digital in a number of important ways, so yes, I agree with you that B&W may well remain in the marketplace for some time yet, perhaps even decades (but my gut says more like a decade not multiple decades). And as you say, digital continues to improve.