Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Images of Kodak (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t808190-re-images-of-kodak.html)

Bruce 01-19-2012 12:15 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

>This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As a
>tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published an
>online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
>
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
>or:
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-history-pictures#/?picture=384675376&index=0>



(now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)

RichA 01-19-2012 06:08 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Jan 19, 7:15*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. *As a
> >tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published an
> >online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. *Enjoy!

>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
> >or:
> ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-....>

>
> (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)


The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Noons 01-19-2012 09:56 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Jan 20, 5:08*am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. *Profitless,
> cheap camera bodies. *That's mostly what killed them.


Yup. A technology company gets its name from making mostly one
product.
As the market growth for said product stagnates, the company invents a
replacement.
And starts to ditch base product value-add at a great rate, BEFORE the
replacement has been fully developed.
Meanwhile, the competition does exactly that: expand the replacement
into new markets, develop new ideas.

Faced with increased pressure, the company ditches the main product
r&d (sooo "expensive"!), then its derivatives, add-ons and value-adds.
While ditching development of the replacement products and
concentrating only in a single aspect of said replacement.

I think the "experts" call that "rationalization". It's also what
killed Sperry, Burroughs, Prime, CDC, etcetc.

Ah well... It sounds to me like a sure recipe for disaster, in ANY
market or industry.
There is only a few times one can shoot a foot off and remain able to
walk.

What was that about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing
over and over and expecting a different result? Narh, what needs to
be done is rinse and repeat of the "one product does all" concept.
Hear that, Nikon and Pentax?

But then again: I'm not a McKinsey "expert", so what do I know?

JimCo 01-20-2012 03:39 AM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Jan 19, 3:56*pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 5:08*am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. *Profitless,
> > cheap camera bodies. *That's mostly what killed them.

>
> Yup. *A technology company gets its name from making mostly one
> product.
> As the market growth for said product stagnates, the company invents a
> replacement.
> And starts to ditch base product value-add at a great rate, BEFORE the
> replacement has been fully developed.
> Meanwhile, the competition does exactly that: expand the replacement
> into new markets, develop new ideas.
>
> Faced with increased pressure, the company ditches the main product
> r&d (sooo "expensive"!), then its derivatives, add-ons and value-adds.
> While ditching development of the replacement products and
> concentrating only in a single aspect of said replacement.
>
> I think the "experts" call that "rationalization". It's also what
> killed Sperry, Burroughs, Prime, CDC, etcetc.
>
> Ah well... It sounds to me like a sure recipe for disaster, in ANY
> market or industry.
> There is only a few times one can shoot a foot off and remain able to
> walk.
>
> What was that about the definition of insanity? *Doing the same thing
> over and over and expecting a different result? *Narh, what needs to
> be done is rinse and repeat of the "one product does all" concept.
> Hear that, Nikon and Pentax?
>
> But then again: I'm not a McKinsey "expert", so what do I know?


I have a friend, a chemist, who used to work for the old Polaroid
company. He said that that company had gone under a long time ago
because its founder, Land, also stubbornly refused to branch out in
different directons from his basic interest in his camera idea.
JimCo

Bruce 01-20-2012 06:36 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
JimCo <chemcope@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>I have a friend, a chemist, who used to work for the old Polaroid
>company. He said that that company had gone under a long time ago
>because its founder, Land, also stubbornly refused to branch out in
>different directons from his basic interest in his camera idea.



Many other companies have failed *precisely because* they branched out
in different directions.

Every company is different in some way from other companies. Some
companies do better by diversifying into other markets; others do
better by concentrating on core activities. There is no universal
wisdom.


Noons 01-22-2012 10:26 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Jan 21, 5:36*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Every company is different in some way from other companies. *Some
> companies do better by diversifying into other markets; others do
> better by concentrating on core activities. There is no universal
> wisdom.


other than management's inability to determine/gauge one or the other
path, as needed and appropriate...

Robert Coe 01-27-2012 02:49 AM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > >This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. *As
: > >a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: > >an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. *Enjoy!
: >
: > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: > >or:
: > ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...>
: >
: > (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob

Nemo 01-27-2012 09:26 AM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> >This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
> :> >a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
> :> >an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
> :>
> :> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
> :> >or:
> :> ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...>
> :>
> :> (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
> :
> : The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
> : cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.
>
> Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
> most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
> marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
> fiction.
>
> Bob

Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

Bruce 01-27-2012 03:48 PM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
Nemo <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :> Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :> >This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
>> :> >a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
>> :> >an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
>> :>
>> :> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
>> :> >or:
>> :> ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...>
>> :>
>> :> (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
>> :
>> : The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
>> : cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.
>>
>> Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
>> most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
>> marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
>> fiction.
>>
>> Bob

>Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
>inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
>patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.



Your point is well made. However, Kodak has rejected that model for
its own line of inkjet printers by offering "the cheapest branded ink
on the market" and selling printers whose prices are not as heavily
subsidised as comparable branded printers. Indeed, they may not be
subsidised at all.

Whether this will work or not is moot. But Kodak's plan for a
post-Chapter 11 future is apparently based on their very different
model for selling printers and ink as a key component of the business.
You can understand why; Kodak prints are what most people (but not
most photographers) remember the company for.

The problem is that there are more than two printer/ink models. There
is the model adopted by most manufacturers (excluding Kodak) with
subsidised printers and expensive ink. Then there is the Kodak model
with unsubsidised printers and cheaper ink. But there is a third
model, of people buying subsidised printers from HP, Canon, Epson,
Lexmark etc. then re-filling them with cheap off-brand ink.

I can see how people would find Kodak's model attractive against most
manufacturers' model using manufacturers' ink. However, most
off-brand ink is not only cheaper than most manufacturers' branded
ink, it is also cheaper than Kodak branded ink. So how can Kodak's
model pay off?

Kodak also needs to face up to the fact that fewer people are printing
images at all. They shoot them, store them on hard drives, upload
them to social networking sites and some even upload them to sites
like Flickr. But they don't print them.

I have seen a market analysis that looks at the future of photo
printing as a business, and the prognosis isn't good. In the early
days of digital photography, people printed images because that was
the best way to share them. But with rapidly rising ownership of home
computers, they began to share them by email and sites like Flickr,
and the demand for printing slowed. The along came Facebook, a
game-changer if ever there was one, and everyone could share photos
with ease.

The demand for printing has reduced substantially. I wonder where
Kodak is getting its projections from, because any business trying to
take a dramatically increased share of a sinking market faces an
uphill struggle.


Robert Coe 01-30-2012 03:12 AM

Re: Images of Kodak
 
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:36:50 -0600, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
:
:
: On 1/29/12 7:45 PM, in article
: 2012012917452827544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
: <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
:
: > On 2012-01-29 17:03:55 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> said:
: >
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >> On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
: >> 2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
: >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>> On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo <invalid@invalid.invalid> said:
: >>>
: >>>> On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
: >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<rander3127@gmail.com>
: >>>>> wrote:
: >>>>> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >>>>> :> Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >>>>> :> >This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: >>>>> :> >a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: >>>>> :> >an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
: >>>>> :>
: >>>>> :> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: >>>>> :> >or:
: >>>>> :>
: >>>>>>
: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...>>>>>>
: >
: >>>>> :>
: >>>>> :> (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
: >>>>> :
: >>>>> : The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: >>>>> : cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
: >>>>> made
: >>>>> most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense
: >>>>> as
: >>>>> a
: >>>>> marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an
: >>>>> accounting
: >>>>> fiction.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Bob
: >>>> Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
: >>>> inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
: >>>> patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.
: >>>>
: >>>> Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
: >>>> lock-in to content supply.
: >>>
: >>> With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
: >>> corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
: >>> International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
: >>> cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
: >>> used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
: >>> systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
: >>> envelope address writing systems.
: >>> They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
: >>> embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
: >>> They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
: >>> are probably still working.
: >>>
: >>> They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
: >>> were never able to reinvent themselves.
: >>> < http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII >
: >>>
: >>> ...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the
: >>>
: >>> same road.
: >>> < http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm >
: >>>
: >>
: >> Microfish comes to mind...
: >
: > Damn!
: > We were still using those for some archived case files in 2009, some 4
: > years after a State computer archiving project was initiated. For all I
: > know, after I retired, that work still might not be complete and the
: > readers still in use. There were still two microfiche readers in my
: > offices in daily use when I retired at the end of February 2009.
: >
: > Some of the microfiche pages were so badly scanned as to be almost
: > illegible. So when the computer project got underway, they just used
: > the same badly scanned microfiche images as no hard copies existed.
: > Where hardcopies existed, decent scans were made. Entries made into
: > various computer software such as Word, Excel, and Access made the
: > transition reasonably well.
: > Now there are several dedicated integrated report systems for
: > incidents, crime reports, and criminal data which also access the
: > archives. There are the usual compatibility issues when dealing with
: > different jurisdictions even within the State. Very little is done on
: > paper today, at the State level in California anyway.
:
: Sorry for my misspelling. But glad that it stimulated your mind. You are one
: of the few here who really have an excellent input with really interesting
: subject matter. Thank you for that, Duck. You are a gem in a sea of silt.
:
: CUDOS, Sir!

I'll bet the Duck even knows how to spell "kudos". ;^)

Bob


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.