Kodak's plunge into the toilet of destitution

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 3, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Peter Jason Guest

    On Fri, 3 May 2013 21:09:29 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <b60595a6-4f1d-4c8b-a45c-67b2056e37c4
    >@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
    >>
    >> http://business.time.com/2013/04/30...es-in-creative-pension-funding/?iid=obnetwork

    >
    >It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.


    At least they might have hedged their bets and got
    into digital in the 1990s. Still, they had a
    vast investment in film stock and processing.
     
    Peter Jason, May 4, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Peter Jason
    <> wrote:

    > >It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.

    >
    > At least they might have hedged their bets and got
    > into digital in the 1990s. Still, they had a
    > vast investment in film stock and processing.


    kodak got into digital well before the 1990s. they even invented it,
    back in the 1970s.

    in the early 1990s, kodak released a modified nikon slr with a digital
    back, followed later by modified canon slrs.

    <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-2001993.jpg>

    what kodak did not realize is just how fast film would be killed off by
    digital.
     
    nospam, May 4, 2013
    #3
  4. Usenet Account, May 4, 2013
    #4
  5. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Peter Jason
    > <> wrote:


    >> >It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.

    >>
    >> At least they might have hedged their bets and got
    >> into digital in the 1990s. Still, they had a
    >> vast investment in film stock and processing.


    > kodak got into digital well before the 1990s. they even invented it,
    > back in the 1970s.


    > in the early 1990s, kodak released a modified nikon slr with a digital
    > back, followed later by modified canon slrs.


    > <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-2001993.jpg>


    > what kodak did not realize is just how fast film would be killed off by
    > digital.


    I'm surprised by how long it took. Given Moore's Law the writing has
    been on the wall in very big letters for well over a decade.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 4, 2013
    #5
  6. On 5/4/13 3:12 AM, Usenet Account wrote:

    > Too bad it's the pensioners that will get screwed.
    >
    >

    They just will be screwed just before the others.
    Pension funds are massively invested in stock exchange.
    Imagine what MUST happen to the stocks, when they will ask their money
    back to pay the baby boomers?
    Then all the book value will blast as a balloon hit by a nail.
    *puff*



    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, May 4, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 04/05/2013 00:14, Peter Jason wrote:
    > On Fri, 3 May 2013 21:09:29 +0200, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <b60595a6-4f1d-4c8b-a45c-67b2056e37c4
    >> @d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
    >>>
    >>> http://business.time.com/2013/04/30...es-in-creative-pension-funding/?iid=obnetwork

    >>
    >> It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.


    You can bet your bottom dollar that the CEO and board that wrecked the
    company all have a copper bottomed luxury pension fund salted away. It
    is only the PEONs that get shafted by these creative accounting types.
    >
    > At least they might have hedged their bets and got
    > into digital in the 1990s. Still, they had a
    > vast investment in film stock and processing.


    They were. Bayer worked for Kodak digital imaging. Their professional
    PhotoCD scanning service was second to none and very innovative.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_sensor

    The Bayer mask patent dates from 1976 long before consumer digital
    imaging was even possible at any price. CCDs were still lab toys then.

    I had an original Kodak DC-120 camera ~1998 the first 1Mpixel device.
    They also did very high end professional camera backs for a while too.
    But to protect the film business they messed up the digital division!

    They completely failed to spot that digicams would become consumer items
    and the classic wet halide chemistry film was ultimately doomed.
    Polaroid suffered a similar fate - unable to see that digital was
    capable of wiping them out with its instant feedback.

    Even the P&S market failed to spot that newer smart mobile phones would
    incorporate digital cameras good enough for most consumers!

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 4, 2013
    #7
  8. On 5/4/13 2:16 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <km2oo1$l4o$>, Laszlo Lebrun says...
    >> They just will be screwed just before the others.
    >> Pension funds are massively invested in stock exchange.
    >> Imagine what MUST happen to the stocks, when they will ask their money
    >> back to pay the baby boomers?
    >> Then all the book value will blast as a balloon hit by a nail.
    >> *puff*

    >
    > Haven't the baby boomers already reached the retirement age a while ago?


    No, no. 80% of that crowd is still in activity.

    > Besides with bank interest rates close to 0% where else can the money
    > go?
    >

    That is not the question. With the current cheap money, the massive
    withdrawal form the stock markets is only delayed.
    The question is NOT where to go with the excess money, but what will
    happen, when the money gets short?
    The real question is just simple as that: does a solution exist to keep
    stock value when the offer becomes bigger than the demand?
    That would be a breach of the most elementary economics rule...


    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, May 4, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/4/2013 11:51 AM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
    > On 5/4/13 2:16 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <km2oo1$l4o$>, Laszlo Lebrun says...
    >>> They just will be screwed just before the others.
    >>> Pension funds are massively invested in stock exchange.
    >>> Imagine what MUST happen to the stocks, when they will ask their money
    >>> back to pay the baby boomers?
    >>> Then all the book value will blast as a balloon hit by a nail.
    >>> *puff*

    >>
    >> Haven't the baby boomers already reached the retirement age a while ago?

    >
    > No, no. 80% of that crowd is still in activity.
    >
    >> Besides with bank interest rates close to 0% where else can the money
    >> go?
    >>

    > That is not the question. With the current cheap money, the massive
    > withdrawal form the stock markets is only delayed.
    > The question is NOT where to go with the excess money, but what will
    > happen, when the money gets short?
    > The real question is just simple as that: does a solution exist to keep
    > stock value when the offer becomes bigger than the demand?
    > That would be a breach of the most elementary economics rule...


    I guess a "massive withdrawal form [sic} the stock markets," fueled the
    Dow closing at over $15,000.
    Yes some money is cheap, but decent returns are available, if you know
    what you are doing.
    Your assumption that our economy won't recover, is flawed. Just look at
    the unemployment rate, which is one of th key indicators of the health
    of the economy.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 4, 2013
    #9
  10. On 5/4/13 6:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-04 08:51:07 -0700, Laszlo Lebrun
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 5/4/13 2:16 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>> In article <km2oo1$l4o$>, Laszlo Lebrun says...
    >>>> They just will be screwed just before the others.
    >>>> Pension funds are massively invested in stock exchange.
    >>>> Imagine what MUST happen to the stocks, when they will ask their money
    >>>> back to pay the baby boomers?
    >>>> Then all the book value will blast as a balloon hit by a nail.
    >>>> *puff*
    >>>
    >>> Haven't the baby boomers already reached the retirement age a while ago?

    >>
    >> No, no. 80% of that crowd is still in activity.

    >
    > Well this 1949 vintage one retired in February 2009.
    >
    >>> Besides with bank interest rates close to 0% where else can the money
    >>> go?
    >>>

    >> That is not the question. With the current cheap money, the massive
    >> withdrawal form the stock markets is only delayed.
    >> The question is NOT where to go with the excess money, but what will
    >> happen, when the money gets short?
    >> The real question is just simple as that: does a solution exist to
    >> keep stock value when the offer becomes bigger than the demand?
    >> That would be a breach of the most elementary economics rule...

    >
    > My pension and retirement benefits come from the coffers of CalPERS
    > (California Public Employees Retirement System).
    > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpers >
    >
    >

    So you can't imagine CalPERS coming into trouble?
    It's just a matter of time. You will remember me.

    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, May 4, 2013
    #10
  11. On 5/4/13 7:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > Your assumption that our economy won't recover, is flawed. Just look at
    > the unemployment rate, which is one of th key indicators of the health
    > of the economy.


    IMHO the overall economy plays no role, excepted if it would perform
    that well that, it could politically subsidiarize the failing pension funds.
    There is no cure for that: if the offer is bigger than the demand on the
    stock market, prices will fall. Pension funds will need their capital
    back to pay the babyboomers' pensions.


    --
    One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
    One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, May 4, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/4/2013 1:31 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
    > On 5/4/13 7:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >> Your assumption that our economy won't recover, is flawed. Just look at
    >> the unemployment rate, which is one of th key indicators of the health
    >> of the economy.

    >
    > IMHO the overall economy plays no role, excepted if it would perform
    > that well that, it could politically subsidiarize the failing pension
    > funds.
    > There is no cure for that: if the offer is bigger than the demand on the
    > stock market, prices will fall. Pension funds will need their capital
    > back to pay the babyboomers' pensions.
    >
    >


    Your statement says it all:
    Try Economics 101 for starters.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 4, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/4/2013 2:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-04 10:09:37 -0700, Laszlo Lebrun
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 5/4/13 6:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-05-04 08:51:07 -0700, Laszlo Lebrun
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 5/4/13 2:16 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>> In article <km2oo1$l4o$>, Laszlo Lebrun says...
    >>>>>> They just will be screwed just before the others.
    >>>>>> Pension funds are massively invested in stock exchange.
    >>>>>> Imagine what MUST happen to the stocks, when they will ask their
    >>>>>> money
    >>>>>> back to pay the baby boomers?
    >>>>>> Then all the book value will blast as a balloon hit by a nail.
    >>>>>> *puff*
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Haven't the baby boomers already reached the retirement age a while
    >>>>> ago?
    >>>>
    >>>> No, no. 80% of that crowd is still in activity.
    >>>
    >>> Well this 1949 vintage one retired in February 2009.
    >>>
    >>>>> Besides with bank interest rates close to 0% where else can the money
    >>>>> go?
    >>>>>
    >>>> That is not the question. With the current cheap money, the massive
    >>>> withdrawal form the stock markets is only delayed.
    >>>> The question is NOT where to go with the excess money, but what will
    >>>> happen, when the money gets short?
    >>>> The real question is just simple as that: does a solution exist to
    >>>> keep stock value when the offer becomes bigger than the demand?
    >>>> That would be a breach of the most elementary economics rule...
    >>>
    >>> My pension and retirement benefits come from the coffers of CalPERS
    >>> (California Public Employees Retirement System).
    >>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpers >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> So you can't imagine CalPERS coming into trouble?
    >> It's just a matter of time. You will remember me.

    >
    > While a collapse of CalPERS might be in the realm of possibility, they
    > weathered the last crisis quite well due to diversification.
    > I must admit I got a bit concerned when their assets dropped to $160B at
    > the peak of the crisis and their real estate investments took a big hit.
    > However, as of February 28, 2013 they are back up to an asset value of
    > $255B.
    >
    > Regardless of doomsayers I would rather have my eggs in the CalPERS
    > basket than the future the Kodak retirees have to look forward to.
    >


    Investments yielding between 5 & 8.5% are available. A well run fund
    should be able to get even higher yields.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 4, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 3, 9:12 pm, Usenet Account <> wrote:
    > On 03/05/2013 3:09 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    > > In article <b60595a6-4f1d-4c8b-a45c-67b2056e37c4
    > > @d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...

    >
    > >>http://business.time.com/2013/04/30/kodak-to-pay-retired-workers-in-f....

    >
    > > It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.

    >
    > Too bad it's the pensioners that will get screwed.
    >


    Pensions always suck the life from weak companies, with large, old
    companies and people living longer (but getting sick in that old age)
    pension costs can be crushing, like with GM, etc.
     
    RichA, May 4, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 3, 7:33 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Peter Jason
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > >It seems Kodak deserved what happened to them.

    >
    > > At least they might have hedged their bets and got
    > > into digital in the 1990s.   Still, they had a
    > > vast investment in film stock and processing.

    >
    > kodak got into digital well before the 1990s. they even invented it,
    > back in the 1970s.
    >
    > in the early 1990s, kodak released a modified nikon slr with a digital
    > back, followed later by modified canon slrs.
    >
    > <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-2001993.jpg>
    >
    > what kodak did not realize is just how fast film would be killed off by
    > digital.


    Kodak's reputation did them in. They produced cheap junk during their
    entire existence (as far as cameras went) so that when they started
    making DSLRs, it was only a matter of time before Canon and Nikon's
    own offerings wiped them out. Then, all they were left with was 60%
    of a growing less profitable by the day P&S market. That eroded too.
     
    RichA, May 4, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/4/2013 5:48 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <e%7ht.34303$>, Martin Brown says...
    >> Even the P&S market failed to spot that newer smart mobile phones would
    >> incorporate digital cameras good enough for most consumers!

    >
    > Oh well... not that many phone with optical zooms around.
    >



    <http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 5, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/5/2013 3:48 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <5185a895$0$10764$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > says...
    >> <http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/>

    >
    > $249... Do you know you can buy a real digital camera with a 3x optical
    > zoom for less than 50 Euro? Lots of digital cameras are cheaper than
    > smartphones.
    >


    Ho! But if you hum a few bars, I'll fake it.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 5, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 5, 3:48 am, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <5185a895$0$10764$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > says...
    >
    > > <http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/>

    >
    > $249... Do you know you can buy a real digital camera with a 3x optical
    > zoom for less than 50 Euro? Lots of digital cameras are cheaper than
    > smartphones.


    And no contracts or monthly phone bills! But then cellphone addicts
    wouldn't buy them.
     
    RichA, May 6, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/6/2013 7:37 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On May 5, 3:48 am, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <5185a895$0$10764$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> <http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/>

    >>
    >> $249... Do you know you can buy a real digital camera with a 3x optical
    >> zoom for less than 50 Euro? Lots of digital cameras are cheaper than
    >> smartphones.

    >
    > And no contracts or monthly phone bills! But then cellphone addicts
    > wouldn't buy them.
    >


    You almost sound like nospam. Millions of people, of all income levels
    are addicted to smartphones. Walk into an fast food joint, and observe
    the minimum wage workers, with smart phones. All texting when the boss
    isn't looking.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 7, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51883ac8$0$10753$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > Millions of people, of all income levels
    > are addicted to smartphones.


    how many millions?

    not that it matters, since there are 6 billion cellular subscribers, so
    even if there are a few million addicts (if they are even addicted at
    all), it is completely insignificant.

    > Walk into an fast food joint, and observe
    > the minimum wage workers, with smart phones. All texting when the boss
    > isn't looking.


    everyone knows that what goes on in a fast food joint defines what the
    rest of the world does.
     
    nospam, May 7, 2013
    #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. Arawak
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    28,398
    knowsomething
    Feb 24, 2011
  2. joevan

    Germs on your toilet brush

    joevan, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,792
  3. dwacon

    Toilet

    dwacon, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    825
    Plato
    Mar 7, 2005
  4. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,264
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 2, 2005
  5. Doug

    took the plunge into digital photography

    Doug, Aug 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    332
    Bill Funk
    Sep 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page