Kodak on 10 Brands that will Disappear in 2010 List

[aizan]

if kodak goes under, could the film and sensor divisions stay in operation? what would they have to do?

 

[bmattock]

if kodak goes under, could the film and sensor divisions stay in operation? what would they have to do?

If and when Kodak files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (which may not be how they meet their end), their assets are broken up and sold off to the highest bidder. If some company feels they have the ability to pick up a portion of the product line and make a go of it, they'll make an offer; so you never know.

Kodak's investors might also force a liquidation sans bankruptcy, which would have the same basic result.

Kodak's patents and license fees are very valuable, and there is little doubt that someone would want the name brand. However, much like the digital cameras that are now being made branded "Polaroid" or "Argus" or "Voigtlander," they're that in name only.

 

[raid]

I should be able to use most of my SLR/RF lenses on digital cameras when it comes to having shortages in film supply and in developing centers. No big deal. Life has to move on.

 

[Lilserenity]

And so the world postured and procrastinated, divested itself of thoughts and facts on the Internet whilst outside the world quietly wended its way onwards passing by like a ship in the night...

What will be will be. What I do know is that I'm still able to shoot film and will do so for as long as I can.

But I won't be spending my time on the 'net flogging the dead horse when I could be out taking pictures, be them film now or maybe in the future digital.

 

[bmattock]

But I won't be spending my time on the 'net flogging the dead horse when I could be out taking pictures, be them film now or maybe in the future digital.

It's dark here now. If it were time for me to go out and take photos, that's what I'd be doing.

 

[chris00nj]

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

Not necessarily forever, but the article talked about a death this year. I don't have any aggregate statistics on worldwide film sales. Is the decrease in demand slowing?

Kodak is not profitable.

Kodak isn't as a whole, but I specifically mentioned their film division.

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.

Vile canard?

First off, your elevator operator analogy is a red herring, because you didn't offer to pay for the operator.

There are fixed costs and if demand was incredibily small, yes, film would have to be more expensive to service those costs. However, we are not seeing prices get anywhere near $100 or $15 /roll. Demand has been high enough to support much lower prices. Perhaps you are envisioning a world 25 years from, now but the general topic of discussion had surmised a film demise within a five year period.

You are also confusing the profitility of starting a new company, and servicing a mature product. The factory is already built. The tools are there. Required R&D is near zero.

If Kodak abritrarily stopped making film or declared bankruptcy, their assets would have some value and will be sold. Someone will buy the equipment and the patents and sell them. The new buyer wouldn't have the debt burden that Kodak does.

I am well versed in return on equity. I don't know what Kodak film group's would be but they did make $47 million (operating income) on $572 million in revenue. 8% margin isn't that bad considering and the ROE on a film group may be quite decent. Target made 4.4% on operating margin, and has an 11% ROE.

The continuance of Kodak as a current entity and the contiuation of Kodak film are two different things. Besides $2 billion in debt, Kodak is also suffering from almost $3 billion in pension liabilities. Like the car companies, back in the day, Kodak enjoyed increased short-term profitability by pushing off compensation to the next generation in terms of generous pensions. The next generation is here and the company is suffering because of it. (Makes me wonder about our $13 trillion US debt and social security)

Supply meeting demand is not an "old falsehood." It's a general business truth with, like all things, some exceptions. Demand for film has not fallen to the level to trigger those exceptions.

 

[chris00nj]

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.

Your original post clearly indidcates several different sets of posters.

 

[Lilserenity]

It's dark here now. If it were time for me to go out and take photos, that's what I'd be doing.

It doesn't have to be taken literally; I'm just confounded at how much time people spend regurgitating the same things that has been done time and time again. It can be any subject, all around the 'net. It's dark here too, for what it's worth.

We all know the old way in anything is doomed to obscurity or small-time bit parts; maybe I just feel there is so much wasted energy.

Or maybe if its anything it's a compliment to say I've paid attention to what you said yesterday.

 

[enochRoot]

well said!! 😉

And so the world postured and procrastinated, divested itself of thoughts and facts on the Internet whilst outside the world quietly wended its way onwards passing by like a ship in the night...

What will be will be. What I do know is that I'm still able to shoot film and will do so for as long as I can.

But I won't be spending my time on the 'net flogging the dead horse when I could be out taking pictures, be them film now or maybe in the future digital.

 

[sevo]

My thought for some time has been that color film is doomed. Slide film first, then color print.

My guess is that it will be the other way around. Slide even has a realistic chance of survival in that its projection quality is unique and way ahead of digital - a originally $1000 projector will beat anything short of $100k installations, and that probably will not change for decades, as film projection quality was a side effect of taking medium resolution, and as such almost for free, while digital projection resolution has to be paid for inch by inch on top of the camera price. Projectors with a resolution ten times the current digital cinema specifications at a price below current home beamers would not only need several massive technical breakthroughs, but also a completely different consumer attitude towards projection quality.

Colour print on the other hand really has no merits worth mentioning beyond using a printout process (RC4) also used by many digital printers. But every improvement made to digital print processes will make film less printable (which has indeed already started a few years ago). That CN is better to scan always has been a purely theoretic argument - in practice, it is not, thanks to a lack of standardization and support by scanners, and with no new scanners in the pipe, that will not improve. That its main users (consumers and daily press) have gone more digital than the pros that always have been more into slide won't help matters either. Nor is Hollywood a suitable argument - they use different film with a different process.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The increase in cost of film will not be gradual. It will be sudden and dramatic, as a major player or two exits the market. Kodak does not have a history of saying a film (or paper) line will end in a year. They simply announce that it is dead.

According to Kodak, most film sold is large format - as in industrial, x-ray and graphics art film - not 35mm or 120. That means it's the film we shoot that is likely less profitable and would be the first to go. Fuji abandoned large format process and GA film a couple of years ago.

 

[antiquark]

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.

I can think of a counterexample. In the slide rule industry, demand vanished before supply. There were warehouses full of sliderules that never sold. Look for NOS (New Old Stock) on eBay, you can still buy slide rules new in the box (NIB).

 

[BillBingham2]

So tell me punk, are you feeling LUCKY?

I haven't not been worried about Kodak for the past 10 years. They might get sucked into some restructuring but I'm not sure it would be bad.

Sad news all the same.

B2 (;->

 

[bmattock]

I can think of a counterexample. In the slide rule industry, demand vanished before supply. There were warehouses full of sliderules that never sold. Look for NOS (New Old Stock) on eBay, you can still buy slide rules new in the box (NIB).

This would be a classic example of a mistake made by the manufacturers in overestimating remaining demand. Of course, they can probably be forgiven, the advent of the cheap consumer-use microprocessor was an industry-shaking event, cataclysmic in scope. Simple four-function calculators went from $300 to $30 in less than six months and H-P and TI tore the slide rule market a new one.

 

[-doomed-]

It would be a shame to see kodak disappear or film for that matter but as the technology juggernaut rolls on it will eventually phase out the antiquated technology that currently exists. It's the nature of the beast.


With that said I guess I better start saving for an m8 or m9 , by the time film is completely dead I should have enough.

 

[DerekF]

It would be a shame to see kodak disappear or film for that matter but as the technology juggernaut rolls on it will eventually phase out the antiquated technology that currently exists. It's the nature of the beast.


With that said I guess I better start saving for an m8 or m9 , by the time film is completely dead I should have enough.

If Kodak disappears, you'd better hope Leica can source another supplier for its future M DRFs...

 

[-doomed-]

If Kodak disappears, you'd better hope Leica can source another supplier for its future M DRFs...

True, I had forgotten about that. Damn you kodak!!(along with my forgetting them manufacturing the M sensors)
Hopefully Ilford will carry the torch along with those other film manufacturers((chinese and eastern european). As long as I can still buy black and white along with the chemicals I use I'll be ok. Still it'd be a shame to see kodak go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[Rob-F]

Kodak, not too long ago, put in a new, modern, downsized plant for coating film. That sounds to me like they must be planning on making film for quite a while. And surely the last two films to go will be Tri-X and the newly revised T-Max 400. Even Tom A, Tri-X fan that he is, speaks well of the new T-Max 400. So these films will be around forever.

Excuse me. I have to go order 1000 rolls of Tri-X. No that I'm worried. Jeez . . .

 

[gb hill]

Hey Bill or Pickett, I'm looking for a MF camera preferably a Hassleblad, wouldn't happen to have one would you? I'll give ya $50.00 for it. I figured that's a deal considering it will be a paperweight within a year according to you guys.😀

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Greg, seriously. Rational or not, if Kodak went under, it would set off a selling frenzy. You might get what you wish for. 😉