Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only

This company could write a book about bad business decisions.


Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT


Kodak has reported that its business division that includes digital
cameras suffered a 49% fall in sales (compared to the same period last
year) in the third quarter of 2009. "Continued declines in consumer
spending have had significant impacts in the company's digital camera
and digital picture frame businesses," it said. The sales drop has
primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.

The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
business grew. Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.

Rich

Is it because of the use of plastic?

Glen

Plastic Grey sucks.

Charles

Rich <> wrote:
>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT

And I bet that you don't even know what those decisions were.

Tell us: did YOU invest a lot of money into digital imaging products
15 years ago? Or are you just playing armchair quarterback and
pretending that you're something other than an ignorant ass?

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

Glen wrote:
> Is it because of the use of plastic?

<grin> I'm sure that RichA thinks so.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-...
> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
> The sales drop has
> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.

Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
revenues
doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.

>
> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
> business grew.

Buisness grew ?

>Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.


> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.

whisky-dave

"whisky-dave" <whisky-> wrote in message
news:hceqkg$aoa$1@qmul...
>
> "Rich" <> wrote in message
> news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-...
>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>
>>
>> The sales drop has
>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
> Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
> revenues
> doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
>>
>> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
>> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
>> business grew.
>
> Buisness grew ?
>
> >Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
> They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
> I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.
>
>
>> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.

Put down the whisky Dave, it's not helping your typing skills.

Richard

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <> wrote in message
>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-...
>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>
>>
>> The sales drop has
>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>revenues
>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
that income is intellectual property royalty.

If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.

I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:05:45 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote in
><>:
>
>>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...
>
>Pretty easy to find out.

But I don't need to find out to answer the question. The question was
what intellectual property right revenues have to do with declining
Kodak sales in the camera market. The question was not "Which Kodak
intellectual property rights revenues have declined?".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

Ï "Charles" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:hcd5ml$gsb$...
> Plastic Grey sucks.
>
My crappy P&S camera, www.nytech.de is made of die-cast aluminium and has a
real glass LCD screen window. After almost 3 years of use, it's as good as
new, while other P&S shooters' look scratched. Strangely enough is made in
China, but with a Pentax lens (and a Sony sensor). As usually,
www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortsphotos



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios