Kodak ?

<p>Kodak is making a comeback these days, but it's not because of the companies film and paper products. Those days are probably gone forever. Rather Kodak is concentrating on the consumer point-and-shoot market where the competition is very stiff, Photo printing, motion Picture and production, consumer inkjet printers and cartridges, and yes image sensors.<br>

As a matter of fact I read somewhere that Kodak was very instrumental in developing the image sensor, the same image sensor that almost ran them out of business. In the 1970's an engineer at Kodak developed what would be the first digital camera. Then in 1991 Kodak came out with the first megapixel digital camera. It was a clunker of a camera, but at least it worked.<br>

Now despite these innovations Kodak had to seriously regroup, in the 1990's so they would not become extinct. So far they have not achieved the popularity they had with film. Kodak is not even close when it comes to giants like Nikon and Canon when it come to professionals. I'm just having a hard time trying to understand how a company could shoot itslef in the foot like that. Did they figure if they didn't do it somebody else eventually would or did I miss something ? </p>

<p>[[Kodak is making a comeback these days]]</p>

<p>http://lnk.nu/marketwatch.com/sxt.aspx</p>

<p>http://lnk.nu/mpnnow.com/sxw</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think it's as simple as saying Kodak backed the wrong horse. They never really concentrated on cameras. They were a film company. When film dies, well, we know there are no more companies making buggy whips.</p>

<p>Dunno...</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/pn/kodak.jpg" alt="" width="387" height="546" /></p>

<p>On an ironic, semi-humorous note, depending on which side of the film/digital debate you might be on, I saw the movie "Total Recall" recently. I had to chuckle at the huge, neon "Fuji Film" sign in one of the futuristic scenes, as all of the futuremobiles with "distinctive" 1980's lines sped by.</p>

<p>If you dig a little deeper, you will see their analog imaging is doing quite well. I agree, they trashed their core business which was chemicals, sold off medical instruments, etc. Yes, backing digital to the expense of other depts sure did them in.</p>

 

<p>Every time I see a discussion with Kodak film in it I have to laugh. My father-in-law has told me on many many occasions that Kodak quit making film some 10 years ago or more, and he won't listen to any argument otherwise.</p>

<p>If Kodak can make enough money selling film they will keep doing it. If they sell enough digital P&S cameras to make a big enough profit they will keep doing it. If they make a big enough profit doing ____ they will keep doing it.</p>

<p>So the next time you hear someone saying they have a freezer full of film left from the 80's so film will never die, ask them how that keeps the film industry going.</p>

<p>I wonder why people think there are no firms making buggy whips now.<br>

Its such a common statement and so hopelessly wrong.<br>

Here's just one place with an extensive range of new driving whips<br>

http://www.drivingessentials.com/Whips.htm</p>

<p>I don't wanna know why some of us are into whip sales.</p>

<p>Kodak makes good products. I want to see them carry on. They are a business that the United States can be genuinely proud of, I think. The end result of the products are peaceful; the thinking and the science behind them has been exemplary; the people have worked hard to do good stuff. I wish I had heard about closing down plants and discontinuing the black and white paper 15 years ago. If I had had any idea that they were having any kind of problem, I would have spent the past 15 years driving around in a car that had a Kodak bumper sticker on it. No joke. I think they're a credit to our society, and I wish they were not beleaguered with these corporate-type problems. </p>

<p>Kodak really has done the US and the world in general a lot of good. I think more people ought to recognize this and purchase their products. I may even break down and buy a roll of Plus-X just to help them out. I would have felt better about that, though, if they had kept a version around ASA 32. It just made me feel good to be there on the film speed dial. Plus-X at 32. It was a line of thinking that just made sense. </p>

<p>John wrote: "Kodak really has done the US and the world in general a lot of good. I think more people ought to recognize this and purchase their products. "</p>

<p>Oh, I absolutely agree they've been a company to be very proud of. I'm an avid Kodak collector and consider my collection a slice of Americana. I couldn't even begin to collect every camera they've put out, but I've got a pretty good representation, dating back to their earliest years. That said, they don't sell much that I use, as I'm almost entirely digital. I'm not willing to shoot film just to keep Kodak afloat, as much as I love the company. It saddens me, though, to see the company slide into oblivion.</p>

<p>there was a man who suggested that the bad drives the good out<br>

and that those who make things to sell at a "price" are doomed to failure.<br>

look at all the cheap stuff on the market.<br>

A swing-away ( beand) canopener is guarenteed for 5 lears and lasts more than 20.<br>

look at all the cheap ones on the market that don't work, bends and cuts your hand not tha can.<br>

cheap stuff.<br>

kodak made things that lasted for years, long past the time they were useful or current.</p>

<p>singer made iron sewing machines that lasted 4 generations and almost went out of business.</p>

<p>Fuji does make good film as well. but Kodak deserves credit for allowing us to take pictures for over a century.</p>

<p>"we know there are no more companies making buggy whips."<br>

There are companies that still make vacuum tubes. Especially for audio. Also, under some instances, a turn table gives better sound than a digital one. So, they are still being made. Those are 2 industries that people thought were dead long ago.<br>

"kodak made things that lasted for years, long past the time they were useful or current."<br>

My World War 1 Kodaks still work fine. Can't say that about ones made today.<br>

Agree with Walter, Kodak was the one that made photography simple enough for the common person.<br>

Most companies stocks have had a giant turn to the downside recently.</p>

 

<p>"There are companies that still make vacuum tubes. Especially for audio. Also, under some instances, a turn table gives better sound than a digital one. So, they are still being made. Those are 2 industries that people thought were dead long ago."</p>

<p>True, but finding wax cylinders and recording wire is a bit challenging these days. ;-) There will always be small companies to make these sorts of specialty items. There's even a place nearby where I can even go to buy a padlock handcrafted by a blacksmith, using 18th Century technology. However, this is an industry that will disappear from the large-cap industrial landscape. In fact Eastman Kodak was dropped as a Dow component in 2004.</p>

<p>I think Kodak got blindsided by the whole digital revolution, not taking it seriously enough. It's not enough to co-develop an early pro model and then to come out with a line of P&S cameras. Kodak should have gone aggressively after the pro market, perhaps with optics by Zeiss, but they didn't. It's the pros that create the visibility, after all. Japan's lost decade would have been the right time to grab a significant niche of the market, but management must have been asleep. Companies like Kodak that fail to evolve eventually go extinct. Great old typewriter companies like International Business Machines (originally the Tabulating Machine Company) know how to reinvent themselves and manage to thrive.</p>

<p>I remember in one of my Shutterbug magazines several years ago. They did an article on the $13,000 digital Kodak camera. And, how digital has finally beaten film. (refering to 35!). Kodak did go for the P&S market mostly. Because, most people these days are what I call, "Digitalized Brownie users". They are the average person, that just wants to take pictures. So, they can email photos of the kids to their grandparents, vacations,etc. Most of my friends, are happy with using their cell phones as a camera. They don't see all these DSLR's costing several thousand. Most people who do take pictures, are different from the ones on Pnet. We take pictures because we love to. They just look at it like a way to have some photos of their family. Just as people were using the simple Brownies years ago.Some would be happy with a Polaroid if they could get the film. Most cameras are not bought by pros or the Photo hobbiest. But, by the ones I mentioned. <br>

Still, Kodak's stock charts are no worse than most. So,it can't be blamed on Kodak not going more digital.</p>

<p>Believe me there are a lot of ignorant people out there. Just about everytime I head out with either my RZ67 or my F2, somebody asks "You can still buy film?"</p>

I hope the Kodak museum - http://www.geh.org/technology.html - stays open. A good take if you are in the area.

<p>I think Kodak took a run at the medium format digital back for several cameras a while ago, but on the pro side they seem to be pushing their digital cinema systems. The competition out there in the P&S market is as cut throat as it has ever been. It does seem however that this would be a departure from Kodak's original mission to put affordable and easy photography in the hands of everyone.</p>

<p>On the film side, they are still producing consumer level film and also producing for the movie industry, but if they can be there for the first full-blown wide-screen digital movie camera, (if it's not already here) they should be viable for some time to come regardless of the market trends illustrated here; which incidentally seem to mirror most businesses these days weather they are producing soup or nuts and everything in between!</p>

<p>Nothing works better on a constipated global economy than a damn good enema in the form of a major recession!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Once Kodachrome bites the dust there's not much I'm going to be buying with the Kodak name on it. It's a shame.</p>

<p>I donno... I personally think Kodak has done this to themselves. They have pushed just as hard as other companies for digital. The problem is they make crappy little digital cameras that nobody wants to buy. I'll be sad if Kodak disappears as they manufacture some of the best color film ever made, and the fact that they are STILL improving and coming out with new film products really is awesome. But, the only one to blame for their downfall is themselves. They helped create the film vs. digital war and splintered their own company and their profits in two in the process. I mean really? You can't shoot your left foot so your right foot will dance better... especially if your right foot is a crappy little pink camera that nobody wants. The American Auto industry is doing the same thing to themselves. People want efficient cars, heck people want ELECTRIC cars, but they refuse to make em. They don't deserve a bail out, they deserve a pink slip. Let's face it, you fire all of your hardworking faithful employees who have been with you for 20+ years and even cut retirement benifits of the ones you don't fire, just to make a buck, then you don't deserve anything from the American people. Frankly, there's alot of poorly run businesses out there and if the government would just keep their fingers out of it, maybe some of the companies will be culled out and leave room for NEW companies with NEW ideas to make headway. Digital didn't kill Polaroid, and it's not killing Kodak, but as the saying goes, good riddance to bad rubbish. If it makes Fuji stronger so they can continue to expand their product line, I'm all about it.</p>

<p>P.S. Sarah, ironically, Fuji calls their digital product line and even the CD's they sell, "Fujifilm".</p>

Alas, I fear that soon Kodak will be nothing more than a misspelling of an Alaskan Bear. Evolution favors the limber.

<p>I think it's more than limber, Bernie. I think it's persistent. Kodak pioneered or was at the leading edge of the digital revolution with the first 1 mp camera in 1991 and then with the 14 / n / c perhaps 12 years later. In neither case, did Kodak persist in refining the cameras to rid them of their flaws. They conceded the field to Nikon and Canon instead.</p>

<p>Probably the pioneering cameras were skunkworks projects the senior management used to prove to itself that Kodak cannot compete in digital. So instead of pushing ahead to out do the Japanese giants, Kodak's ancient management chose to manage the downslide.</p>

<p>I do not have inside information on Kodak so my post is speculative, but I feel pretty secure in my thoughts. The slide has been identical to GM and for almost the same reasons - management and a Board stuck in the past terrified of the future where they aren't kings. If the spirit of George Eastman existed still at Kodak, today it'd be the leader in digital with Canon, Nikon and others such as up and coming Sony picked up market scraps. I really hate to see this just as I hate to see the fall of GM from once the world's premiere company but such is the result of old man thinking.</p>

<p>Agree 100% with Paul. Kodak would bring out a Digital camera or MF Digital back that would be cutting edge technology but with room for improvements. Instead of looking at the product as something that would evolve for the better over time the upper management simply said " This is Kodak, take it or leave it", and when actual sales did not meet forcasted sales the product was simply discontinued and support for the item was discontinued shortly after. If Kodak had decided to actually be a force in Professional Digital cameras, we might have a Pro 28 n/c Digital SLR to compete with Nikon and Canon now.</p>