Kodak disaster...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. Guest

    , Feb 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    > what the public want to buy]


    Actually have have started making a profit again. If you look at the
    detail I believe you will find that the product that the public did not want
    to by was film. They have been recovering from the changed to digital.
    Unlike many camera companies who primarily built cameras Kodak was centered
    on film and processing.

    The general view of the business world appears to be very complimentary
    to Kodak for coming out of such a sudden lose of their primary business as
    well as they did. That said, they might have done better if they had a
    little more foresight and had started the process sooner. They are now
    employing something like 50% of the people they had before.


    >
    > More important is why the bad results from Fujifilm Co.?
    >
    > http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/05/cameras/index.php
    >
    > Panasonic into top gear now...
    >
    > K202


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Cohen Guest

    wrote:
    > Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    > what the public want to buy]


    Like film I suspect.
    Dave Cohen

    > More important is why the bad results from Fujifilm Co.?
    >
    > http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/05/cameras/index.php
    >
    > Panasonic into top gear now...
    >
    > K202
    >
     
    Dave Cohen, Feb 9, 2007
    #3
  4. babaloo Guest

    Kodak does not just market to consumers.
    Medical and other technical customers are switching to digital rather than
    film based processes as well. In these markets the need for film will
    devolve only to highly specialized uses and even the ones I can think of now
    can eventually go digital.
     
    babaloo, Feb 9, 2007
    #4
  5. "babaloo" <> wrote in message
    news:%A1zh.3774$...
    > Kodak does not just market to consumers.
    > Medical and other technical customers are switching to digital rather than
    > film based processes as well. In these markets the need for film will
    > devolve only to highly specialized uses and even the ones I can think of
    > now can eventually go digital.


    Yup!
     
    Charles Schuler, Feb 9, 2007
    #5
  6. AZ Nomad Guest

    On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:47:54 -0800, babaloo <> wrote:


    >Kodak does not just market to consumers.
    >Medical and other technical customers are switching to digital rather than
    >film based processes as well. In these markets the need for film will
    >devolve only to highly specialized uses and even the ones I can think of now
    >can eventually go digital.


    Where did you get the insane notion that kodak is only interested in film
    photography?
     
    AZ Nomad, Feb 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Rich Guest

    On Feb 9, 7:43 am, "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    > > what the public want to buy]


    They don't build anything anymore. Sanyo and others supply them.
    Kodak is dead....
     
    Rich, Feb 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    > what the public want to buy]
    >
    > More important is why the bad results from Fujifilm Co.?
    >
    > http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/05/cameras/index.php
    >
    > Panasonic into top gear now...
    >
    > K202


    To the contrary, they have finally stopped the bleeding, and have turned a
    small profit. They've been losing billions, but have finally moved into the
    black.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Ron Hunter Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    >> what the public want to buy]
    >>
    >> More important is why the bad results from Fujifilm Co.?
    >>
    >> http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/05/cameras/index.php
    >>
    >> Panasonic into top gear now...
    >>
    >> K202

    >
    > To the contrary, they have finally stopped the bleeding, and have turned a
    > small profit. They've been losing billions, but have finally moved into the
    > black.
    >


    Completely retooling a business from one technology to another is a
    massive undertaking, and it almost always results in large layoffs of
    personnel and closing of old technology installations. It appears that
    Kodak may be intending to convert some of their old technology
    installations to manufacture of pigment inks for their new printers.
    That looks like creative management to me.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Rich Guest

    On Feb 10, 7:00 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    > > what the public want to buy]

    >
    > > More important is why the bad results from Fujifilm Co.?

    >
    > >http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/05/cameras/index.php

    >
    > > Panasonic into top gear now...

    >
    > > K202

    >
    > To the contrary, they have finally stopped the bleeding, and have turned a
    > small profit. They've been losing billions, but have finally moved into the
    > black.
    >


    That's like when Ford manages a small profit, one quarter out of 20.
     
    Rich, Feb 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer Guest

    <> wrote:
    >Down 31%, i told you they where building crap [Ok not crap,but not
    >what the public want to buy]
    >


    Hmmm. An anonymous Hotmail account, an unsupported attack...

    Looks like an agenda.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 11, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slarty Bartfast

    Disaster Recovery

    Slarty Bartfast, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,995
    Marko
    Sep 10, 2003
  2. cybersoldier01

    Exchange 5.5 disaster recovery scenario

    cybersoldier01, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    810
    Marlin Munrow
    Apr 13, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4=?=

    Re: Disaster Recovery

    =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4=?=, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,279
    Slart Bartfast
    Jul 8, 2005
  4. paladin2112

    Outlook Express Disaster. Are Overwrites gone forever ?

    paladin2112, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
    paladin2112
    Sep 9, 2003
  5. billly

    disaster!!!

    billly, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    626
    SgtMinor
    Oct 11, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page