Re: Images of Kodak

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce <> 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)
     
    Bruce, Jan 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Bruce <> 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.
     
    RichA, Jan 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    On Jan 20, 5:08 am, RichA <> 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?
     
    Noons, Jan 19, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    JimCo Guest

    On Jan 19, 3:56 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    > On Jan 20, 5:08 am, RichA <> 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
     
    JimCo, Jan 20, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    JimCo <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Jan 20, 2012
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    On Jan 21, 5:36 am, Bruce <> 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...
     
    Noons, Jan 22, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    : > Bruce <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 27, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Nemo Guest

    On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<> wrote:
    > : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    > :> Bruce<> 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.
     
    Nemo, Jan 27, 2012
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Nemo <> wrote:
    >On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<> wrote:
    >> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >> :> Bruce<> 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.
     
    Bruce, Jan 27, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:36:50 -0600, George Kerby <>
    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 <> 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 <> said:
    : >>>
    : >>>> On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
    : >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    : >>>>> wrote:
    : >>>>> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    : >>>>> :> Bruce<> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 30, 2012
    #10
  11. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2012 10:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > I am glad to see some of what I add from time to time is appreciated.
    > That said I add my fair share to the OT sludge. However good footwear
    > will always allow you to wade through most of the muck!
    >


    Nest you'll say that webbed feet let you walk on top of it.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2012
    #11
  12. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2012 10:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-01-30 07:21:43 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/29/2012 10:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> I am glad to see some of what I add from time to time is appreciated.
    >>> That said I add my fair share to the OT sludge. However good footwear
    >>> will always allow you to wade through most of the muck!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Nest you'll say that webbed feet let you walk on top of it.

    >
    > However, I am always sure to remove the good old 13D's post wade, lest I
    > mess that nest.
    >


    Freudian typo?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:58:16 -0600, George Kerby <>
    wrote:
    :
    :
    :
    : On 1/29/12 9:12 PM, in article ,
    : "Robert Coe" <> wrote:
    :
    : > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:36:50 -0600, George Kerby <>
    : > 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 <>
    : > 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 <> said:
    : > : >>>
    : > : >>>> On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    : > : >>>>> wrote:
    : > : >>>>> : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    : > : >>>>> :> Bruce<> 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
    :
    : Pick-Nitting again, Bob?!?

    Naaah, just an old-style Goldwater Republican who can't resist twisting the
    tail of a Neocon. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 31, 2012
    #13
    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. Stephen Stormont

    Can recover old images from SmartMedia card, but not recent images

    Stephen Stormont, Oct 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    555
    Brian E. Ashley
    Oct 20, 2003
  2. Peter Frank
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,086
    Chris Cox
    Dec 13, 2004
  3. Can't view images on Google Images

    , Dec 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,447
    Plato
    Dec 30, 2005
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    310
    bugbear
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    220
    nospam
    May 30, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page