Kodak pulls the plug on digital SLRs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pete R, Jun 10, 2005.

  1. Pete R

    Pete R Guest

    Pete R, Jun 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete R

    Guest

    I expect Kodak to - soon - also get out of the low-end consumer
    digicams. Go to any OfficeMax - and you'll find real cheap digicams
    that Kodak just couldn't compete with on price. The low-end better
    consumer digicams now are way down in price ($150 or less), too.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Pete R wrote:
    > Just came out today
    > http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=282598
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > PETER RITTER


    The article declares ONLY that Kodak has discontinued two cameras. The
    conclusion that Kodak is getting out of the DSLR market is a conclusion
    reached by the author.

    I feel that Kodak can make more money in the area of mass sales, and
    appeal to the 99% of other consumers. In these days of 'niche markets',
    Kodak seeks to appeal to the broadest possible market, in terms of
    numbers, and they are doing very well at it. Follow your strengths.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 10, 2005
    #3
  4. Pete R

    Guest

    Ron wrote:
    >I feel that Kodak can make more money >in the area of mass sales, and
    >appeal to the 99% of other consumers.


    I don't see how. Right now, OfficeMax sells very-low-end digicams
    for under $25 - not much more than Kodak's better single-use film
    cameras! Kodak would thus have to compete with itself to beat them.

    Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > Ron wrote:
    >
    >>I feel that Kodak can make more money >in the area of mass sales, and
    >>appeal to the 99% of other consumers.

    >
    >
    > I don't see how. Right now, OfficeMax sells very-low-end digicams
    > for under $25 - not much more than Kodak's better single-use film
    > cameras! Kodak would thus have to compete with itself to beat them.
    >
    > Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
    >

    I suppose there are people who are happy with disposable cameras, even
    though the cost/shot is quite high, and the quality very low. There are
    already disposable digitals available. I don't know if Kodak is
    interested in this market or not. I HOPE they don't go that far.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Pete R

    Guest

    Ron wrote:
    >I suppose there are people who are happy with disposable cameras, even
    >though the cost/shot is quite high, and the quality very low. There are
    > already disposable digitals available. I don't know if Kodak is
    >interested in this market or not. I HOPE they don't go that far.


    Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    disposable film cameras are much more profitable.
    At that point, I expect Kodak to get out of digicams for sure.

    Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > Ron wrote:
    >
    >>I suppose there are people who are happy with disposable cameras, even
    >>though the cost/shot is quite high, and the quality very low. There are
    >> already disposable digitals available. I don't know if Kodak is
    >>interested in this market or not. I HOPE they don't go that far.

    >
    >
    > Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    > film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    > digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    > have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    > disposable film cameras are much more profitable.
    > At that point, I expect Kodak to get out of digicams for sure.
    >
    > Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
    >

    Silly idea. Sillier conclusion. Simple disposable film cameras have
    been around for MANY years, and Kodak still sells film cameras.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Pete R

    Big Bill Guest

    On 10 Jun 2005 19:16:27 -0700, ""
    <> wrote:

    >Ron wrote:
    >>I suppose there are people who are happy with disposable cameras, even
    >>though the cost/shot is quite high, and the quality very low. There are
    >> already disposable digitals available. I don't know if Kodak is
    >>interested in this market or not. I HOPE they don't go that far.

    >
    > Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    >film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    >digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    >have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    >disposable film cameras are much more profitable.
    > At that point, I expect Kodak to get out of digicams for sure.


    This means that you think Kodak (and, by extension, other digital
    camera makers) will stop making digital cameras because of competition
    from $10 throwaway film cameras?

    Why didn't the Yugo bankrupt GM?
    Well, maybe not a good analogy...

    --
    Big Bill
    Replace "g" with "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Big Bill wrote:
    > On 10 Jun 2005 19:16:27 -0700, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Ron wrote:
    >>
    >>>I suppose there are people who are happy with disposable cameras, even
    >>>though the cost/shot is quite high, and the quality very low. There are
    >>> already disposable digitals available. I don't know if Kodak is
    >>>interested in this market or not. I HOPE they don't go that far.

    >>
    >> Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    >>film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    >>digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    >>have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    >>disposable film cameras are much more profitable.
    >> At that point, I expect Kodak to get out of digicams for sure.

    >
    >
    > This means that you think Kodak (and, by extension, other digital
    > camera makers) will stop making digital cameras because of competition
    > from $10 throwaway film cameras?
    >
    > Why didn't the Yugo bankrupt GM?
    > Well, maybe not a good analogy...
    >

    A better question is why didn't disposable film cameras drive Kodak out
    of the 35mm film camera market. Sheer silliness.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Pete R

    Guest

    Big Bill wrote:
    >This means that you think Kodak (and, by extension, other digital
    >camera makers) will stop making digital cameras because of competition
    >from $10 throwaway film cameras?


    Bass-ackwards, as we say down here. Kodak's profits from throwaway
    cameras are immense. The throwaway cameras - unlike Kodak digicams -
    cost near-nothing to make. Once used, the user is obligated to develop
    and print EVERY photo in the throwaway camera - typically involving
    Kodak chemicals and Kodak printing paper. That's why it's throwaway
    cameras that Kodak couldn't afford to lose - not digicams.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >>This means that you think Kodak (and, by extension, other digital
    >>camera makers) will stop making digital cameras because of competition

    >
    >>from $10 throwaway film cameras?

    >
    > Bass-ackwards, as we say down here. Kodak's profits from throwaway
    > cameras are immense. The throwaway cameras - unlike Kodak digicams -
    > cost near-nothing to make. Once used, the user is obligated to develop
    > and print EVERY photo in the throwaway camera - typically involving
    > Kodak chemicals and Kodak printing paper. That's why it's throwaway
    > cameras that Kodak couldn't afford to lose - not digicams.
    >
    > No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    > http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
    >

    I doubt they will stop making disposables, and might even make
    disposable digital cameras (some companies already DO), but I can't see
    how that would impact the market for better, more capable cameras. I
    wouldn't be using a disposable because the quality really stinks.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Pete R

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, Big Bill
    says...

    > Why didn't the Yugo bankrupt GM?


    Somebody else will do that (well, maybe not bankrupt, but reduce their
    market share).
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
     
    Alfred Molon, Jun 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Pete R

    Guest

    Ron wrote:
    >I doubt they will stop making disposables, >and might even make
    >disposable digital cameras (some >companies already DO), but I can't see
    >how that would impact the market for >better, more capable cameras.


    You're looking at it backwards. The disposable camera is the
    profit center - as it means REPEAT business from the same customer.
    The price of "good" digicams is starting to compete with throwaways
    - be they film or digital. When OfficeMax now sells a Kodak digicam
    for $99, it's not rocket science that it's an infinitely-better deal
    for most all uses than Kodak's $10 (retail) throwaway film cameras for
    anyone with a computer - and thus is starting to compete with the only
    part of Kodak's business that still has repeat sales. When OfficeMax
    sells that Kodak digicam for $99, it's starting to compete with that
    drugstore "rental" one-use digicam at $20.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > Ron wrote:
    >
    >>I doubt they will stop making disposables, >and might even make
    >>disposable digital cameras (some >companies already DO), but I can't see
    >>how that would impact the market for >better, more capable cameras.

    >
    >
    > You're looking at it backwards. The disposable camera is the
    > profit center - as it means REPEAT business from the same customer.
    > The price of "good" digicams is starting to compete with throwaways
    > - be they film or digital. When OfficeMax now sells a Kodak digicam
    > for $99, it's not rocket science that it's an infinitely-better deal
    > for most all uses than Kodak's $10 (retail) throwaway film cameras for
    > anyone with a computer - and thus is starting to compete with the only
    > part of Kodak's business that still has repeat sales. When OfficeMax
    > sells that Kodak digicam for $99, it's starting to compete with that
    > drugstore "rental" one-use digicam at $20.
    >
    > No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    > http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
    >

    You are missing the point. Kodak STARTED with 'disposables'. The early
    Kodak cameras came loaded with film. You took (or mailed) them to the
    processor who opened the camera, extracted the film, processed it,
    printed it, reloaded the camera, and returned it and the negatives and
    prints. Now we have throwaway cameras that aren't returned loaded with
    film, but people still buy non-disposable film cameras because they can
    get better pictures, and don't have to replace the camera each time they
    take a couple of dozen pictures. Why would I pay $20 for a disposable
    digital camera when I could buy one that can take much better pictures,
    and doesn't require running back to the store to get PRINTS (which I
    don't want) along with a disk of the lousy pictures at low resolution?
    I can't figure that logic behind this type of item.

    For the person who takes a few pictures a couple of times a year, and
    doesn't care much about the quality, that might be a cheaper
    alternative. I'm not that customer.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Pete R

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:50:55 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Why would I pay $20 for a disposable
    > digital camera when I could buy one that can take much better pictures,
    > and doesn't require running back to the store to get PRINTS (which I
    > don't want) along with a disk of the lousy pictures at low resolution?


    You shouldn't, even if you wanted to. I've only seen them in CVS
    so far and you can get them there for $10. Probably less elsewhere.

    > I can't figure that logic behind this type of item.


    Really?



    > For the person who takes a few pictures a couple of times a year,
    > and doesn't care much about the quality, that might be a cheaper
    > alternative. I'm not that customer.


    See, you really were able to figure it out. You also stacked the
    logic in your favor. There are many people that might want to take
    pictures far less frequently, such as once every 5 or 10 years at
    most. Why would they want to spend one or two hundred dollars for a
    camera that won't be used? If it's one that comes with a
    rechargeable battery, that'll be good money wasted too. It's also
    presumptuous to say that they wouldn't care much about the quality
    of the pictures. The quality may be more than they want or need,
    and they'd be perfectly happy with a disposable digicam. Your
    camera and mine produce pictures far inferior to that of most DSLRs.
    Does that mean that we also don't care about quality? Nope, it
    means that we're satisfied with the quality they're capable of
    producing. Or at least not dissatisfied enough to purchase
    something better.

    I recall you getting very hot under the collar when you mistakenly
    thought that my position was that people should have a relatively
    inexpensive backup camera that might increase their photographic
    hardware expense by another 10% to 25%. Particularly galling to you
    was that I had no concern that maybe you didn't have enough money to
    buy a second camera. Yet you don't hesitate to disparage those that
    might be perfectly happy with a $10 camera, and not want to pay
    1000% to 2000% percent more to get the kind of camera that satisfies
    you. Some people may not have the financial resources that you do,
    and don't want to waste money frivolously. If asked why they don't
    do as you do, they might say "I'm not that customer."
     
    ASAAR, Jun 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Pete R

    Mxsmanic Guest

    writes:

    > Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    > film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    > digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    > have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    > disposable film cameras are much more profitable.


    Low-end digicams have no advantage over disposable film cameras.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jun 12, 2005
    #16
  17. Pete R

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Alfred Molon writes:

    > Somebody else will do that (well, maybe not bankrupt, but reduce their
    > market share).


    GM is already being bankrupted by its own management.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jun 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:50:55 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Why would I pay $20 for a disposable
    >>digital camera when I could buy one that can take much better pictures,
    >>and doesn't require running back to the store to get PRINTS (which I
    >>don't want) along with a disk of the lousy pictures at low resolution?

    >
    >
    > You shouldn't, even if you wanted to. I've only seen them in CVS
    > so far and you can get them there for $10. Probably less elsewhere.
    >
    >
    >>I can't figure that logic behind this type of item.

    >
    >
    > Really?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>For the person who takes a few pictures a couple of times a year,
    >>and doesn't care much about the quality, that might be a cheaper
    >>alternative. I'm not that customer.

    >
    >
    > See, you really were able to figure it out. You also stacked the
    > logic in your favor. There are many people that might want to take
    > pictures far less frequently, such as once every 5 or 10 years at
    > most. Why would they want to spend one or two hundred dollars for a
    > camera that won't be used? If it's one that comes with a
    > rechargeable battery, that'll be good money wasted too. It's also
    > presumptuous to say that they wouldn't care much about the quality
    > of the pictures. The quality may be more than they want or need,
    > and they'd be perfectly happy with a disposable digicam. Your
    > camera and mine produce pictures far inferior to that of most DSLRs.
    > Does that mean that we also don't care about quality? Nope, it
    > means that we're satisfied with the quality they're capable of
    > producing. Or at least not dissatisfied enough to purchase
    > something better.
    >
    > I recall you getting very hot under the collar when you mistakenly
    > thought that my position was that people should have a relatively
    > inexpensive backup camera that might increase their photographic
    > hardware expense by another 10% to 25%. Particularly galling to you
    > was that I had no concern that maybe you didn't have enough money to
    > buy a second camera. Yet you don't hesitate to disparage those that
    > might be perfectly happy with a $10 camera, and not want to pay
    > 1000% to 2000% percent more to get the kind of camera that satisfies
    > you. Some people may not have the financial resources that you do,
    > and don't want to waste money frivolously. If asked why they don't
    > do as you do, they might say "I'm not that customer."
    >

    I have no complaint with those who want to use a disposable camera. I
    am not one of them. I don't think there are enough of those people to
    render sales of better cameras unprofitable. Is that a simple enough
    statement for you?


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Pete R

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > writes:
    >
    >
    >>Kodak already has a real problem here. Its with-flash disposable
    >>film cameras run $10 retail. At OfficeMax today, Kodak's low-end
    >>digicam ran about $100. Soon, further decreases in digicam prices will
    >>have them competing with each other - even though, as you note,
    >>disposable film cameras are much more profitable.

    >
    >
    > Low-end digicams have no advantage over disposable film cameras.
    >

    Wrong. Almost ANY low end digital is vastly superior in terms of
    flexibility, and quality of image.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Pete R

    Guest

    Ron wrote (to Mxsmanic):
    >Wrong. Almost ANY low end digital is vastly superior in terms of
    >flexibility, and quality of image.


    "Flexibility" is your key word here - and you're correct. A digicam
    - even a poor one - lets any user with even shareware photo-processing
    software do stuff nobody but pro labs could with color film images.
    Under-$100 PhotoShop Elements - and you can work true wonders.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
    http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jun 13, 2005
    #20
    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. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    551
    Kyler Laird
    Nov 3, 2005
  2. Luis ORTEGA

    are non digital lenses better for digital slrs?

    Luis ORTEGA, May 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    560
    Old Nick
    May 25, 2004
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Casio pulls out ceramic lens out of the hat

    Siddhartha Jain, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    329
    Siddhartha Jain
    Sep 29, 2004
  4. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    432
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  5. no
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    417
Loading...

Share This Page