Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joe Kotroczo, Feb 11, 2012.

  1. Joe Kotroczo

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 10/02/2012 00:05, Alan Browne wrote:
    > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?ref=business
    > or - http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs
    >
    > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-picture-frame-division-under-bankruptcy.html
    > or - http://tinyurl.com/88kq392
    >
    > Trying to sell patents...
    > Trying to license its brand...
    >
    > Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
    > Welch used to say...).
    >
    > I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
    > others.


    Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
    November

    <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024464175394328.html>


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 11, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe Kotroczo

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 11/02/2012 23:28, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-02-11 09:34:09 -0800, Mxsmanic<> said:
    >
    >> Joe Kotroczo writes:
    >>
    >>> Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
    >>> November

    >>
    >> Platinum Equity? Sounds like a chop shop. Which means that you can kiss that
    >> business goodbye.

    >
    > Yup! That sounds like a Romneyesque "I like to fire people" operation.


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


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 12, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe Kotroczo

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/12/2012 4:19 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Eric Stevens writes:
    >
    >> Their approach seems to be to buy the skeletons of burned out
    >> companies, flesh them our and get them working profitably again, often
    >> as part of a team.

    >
    > Being profitable and being productive are two very different things.
    >


    And?


    >> Fewer companies would vanish if more people did
    >> this. I don't think they are a pox at all.

    >
    > Many companies do not vanish, but are turned into zombies, focused exclusively
    > on generating profits each quarter.



    And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
    generating profits. Some even are doing research to provide future
    growth and even more profits.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Feb 12, 2012
    #3
  4. Joe Kotroczo

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/12/2012 6:38 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> And?

    >
    > And society (as well as the companies in question) suffers from the emphasis
    > on profit alone.
    >


    So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
    corporate growth?

    >> And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
    >> generating profits.

    >
    > But they are not doing anything productive.
    >


    So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?
    Please define productive, as you use the term.

    >> Some even are doing research to provide future growth and even more profits.

    >
    > Only a very small minority. R&D does not improve the bottom line, at least in
    > the eyes of those who cannot see beyond the current quarter.


    What industries, in what country are you talking about.

    Are you eliminating:
    Automotive;
    technological;
    Health care;
    Transportation;
    Oil & Gas?
    Major appliances?




    Look at the US:
    <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=120303,00.html>



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Feb 13, 2012
    #4
  5. Joe Kotroczo

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/12/2012 6:39 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Eric Stevens writes:
    >
    >> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

    >
    > Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
    > profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.
    >
    >> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

    >
    > Yes, but it damages society as a whole.


    How.
    I suppose the "junk" just appears out of thin air. It is never manufactured?

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Feb 13, 2012
    #5
  6. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:39:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Eric Stevens writes:
    >
    >> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

    >
    >Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
    >profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.


    If people buy it, it is useful to them. It meets some need they have
    even if you don't agree the need is there.

    Even if the company sells "junk", the company is providing employment
    to someone. That's useful.

    >> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

    >
    >Yes, but it damages society as a whole.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 13, 2012
    #6
  7. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >PeterN writes:
    >
    >> So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
    >> corporate growth?

    >
    >Not when you distribute them to shareholders instead of reinvesting them in
    >the company.
    >
    >> So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?

    >
    >Not nearly as productive as providing a useful product or service at a
    >reasonable price.


    You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
    other people use. A product that is not useful may not be beneficial,
    but the company that makes it could be productive.

    Productivity has nothing to do with usefulness. Price has nothing to
    do with productivity.


    >Companies need to have a purpose other than making maximum profit for
    >shareholders in order to be truly productive.
    >
    >> What industries, in what country are you talking about.

    >
    >All of them. Nobody wants to invest in something that won't produce a
    >substantial return by the end of the next quarter.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 13, 2012
    #7
  8. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:54:01 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
    >> other people use.

    >
    >Most people are interested only in money, and don't care about the good of
    >society.


    That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the definition of
    "productive".
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 13, 2012
    #8
  9. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:00:46 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Eric Stevens writes:
    >>
    >>> What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
    >>> bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
    >>> economy, while generating profits?

    >>
    >>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

    >
    >You have to do that to stay in business.


    That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
    of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
    reasonable price.

    Most of us own or have purchased something that turned out not to be
    useful or desirable and over-priced for what we got.

    >The failure to meet that
    >objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.


    I think that Kodak made useful products and priced them reasonably,
    but competitors made products that were more useful or more reasonably
    priced. A Kodak camera is useful and they were reasonably priced.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 13, 2012
    #9
  10. Joe Kotroczo

    Trevor Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    >>>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

    >>
    >>You have to do that to stay in business.

    >
    > That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
    > of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
    > reasonable price.


    "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
    by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
    do that for decades. Others only a short time.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 13, 2012
    #10
  11. Joe Kotroczo

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
    > some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.


    And as every politician knows, you can fool most of the people most of the
    time, and that is enough!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 13, 2012
    #11
  12. Joe Kotroczo

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
    >> made
    >>by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies
    >>can
    >>do that for decades. Others only a short time.
    >>

    > You sound like a cynic telling yourself that all those other people
    > are suckers to buy 'that' thing at 'that' price.


    History shows many of them are. But capitalist consumerism is about creating
    a market and supplying that market at the biggest possible profit you can
    manage. Some companies manage very big profits indeed, and still have their
    customers coming back for more. In that case both would appear to be happy,
    and what I think is irrelevant to either of them.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 14, 2012
    #12
  13. Joe Kotroczo

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
    >> made
    >> by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies
    >> can
    >> do that for decades. Others only a short time.

    >
    > Where there are free markets there is ample room for suckers to learn
    > better as competitors provide alternatives.
    > Otherwise a lot of buying is emotionally driven which is why there is a
    > whole industry called "Advertising".



    Exactly, and since the advertising costs must be added to the sale price, it
    just further proves "reasonable price" is not a prime requirement as was
    suggested.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 14, 2012
    #13
  14. On 2/13/12 PDT 8:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
    >> other people use.

    >
    > Most people are interested only in money, and don't care about the good of
    > society.


    OMG! Of course, you are different; otherwise you'd not be making this
    point.

    So where do you get your stats on "most people"??
    John McWilliams, Feb 14, 2012
    #14
  15. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:58 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >>>>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.
    >>>
    >>>You have to do that to stay in business.

    >>
    >> That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
    >> of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
    >> reasonable price.

    >
    > "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
    >by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
    >do that for decades. Others only a short time.
    >

    I am often extremely baffled by the meaning some people in this group
    attach to some words. A price is reasonable if the *buyer* decides it
    is reasonable. What I think you are referring to are prices based on
    what you think to be excessive mark-up over cost.

    The reasonableness of the price has nothing to do with the cost to
    manufacture and distribute the product in relation to the selling
    price. Something is reasonably priced if you feel it has value to you
    at the price. A Lamborghini may be reasonably priced to some people.

    The biggest profits can come from large mark-ups over cost, but it can
    also come from small mark-ups over cost if volume is high.

    What I consider to a reasonably priced product may be entirely
    different from what you consider a reasonable price. Not because of
    the amount involved, but because of the desirability of the product
    and my perceived need for the product.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2012
    #15
  16. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:31:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >On 2/13/12 PDT 8:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> tony cooper writes:
    >>
    >>> You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
    >>> other people use.

    >>
    >> Most people are interested only in money, and don't care about the good of
    >> society.

    >
    >OMG! Of course, you are different; otherwise you'd not be making this
    >point.
    >
    >So where do you get your stats on "most people"??


    He travels a lot by airplane and visits Starbucks. These seem to be
    the places the uninformed and misinformed come up with their
    projections.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2012
    #16
  17. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:27 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:51:38 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
    >>>> made
    >>>> by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies
    >>>> can
    >>>> do that for decades. Others only a short time.
    >>>
    >>> Where there are free markets there is ample room for suckers to learn
    >>> better as competitors provide alternatives.
    >>> Otherwise a lot of buying is emotionally driven which is why there is a
    >>> whole industry called "Advertising".

    >>
    >>
    >>Exactly, and since the advertising costs must be added to the sale price, it
    >>just further proves "reasonable price" is not a prime requirement as was
    >>suggested.
    >>

    >Of course its a prime requisite. But so too is knowing that the
    >product exists and what it's claimed to do.
    >


    You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
    if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
    created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
    several dollars.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2012
    #17
  18. Joe Kotroczo

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > He travels a lot by airplane and visits Starbucks. These seem to be
    > the places the uninformed and misinformed come up with their
    > projections.


    obviously, you think it's a cool idea. why else would you continually
    bring it up out of the blue? maybe you're pissed you didn't think of it
    first. and i don't do starbucks.

    it turns out that my projections are spot on. so much for uninformed or
    misinformed.

    looking at what real people are actually using in the real world is the
    *best* way to get a pulse on what an industry is doing, any industry,
    not just computers.
    nospam, Feb 14, 2012
    #18
  19. Joe Kotroczo

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
    > > if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
    > > created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
    > > several dollars.

    >
    > Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
    > product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that
    > was a bit naïve, but it went to the notion that really good products
    > sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.


    the best products do sell themselves, while crap products tend to rely
    on shills and deception.

    > I think Apple adverts are not aimed at getting new customers but at
    > reinforcing behaviour with customers who have just bought the latest
    > iGadget. (Certainly most automobile advertising is aimed at those who
    > most recently bought the cars so they'll tout it to their friends and
    > family as well as come back next time).


    long ago, apple's ads used to appeal to existing apple customers. now
    their ads attract new customers.
    nospam, Feb 14, 2012
    #19
  20. Joe Kotroczo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:51:19 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-13 22:21 , tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
    >> if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
    >> created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
    >> several dollars.

    >
    >Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
    >product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that
    >was a bit naïve, but it went to the notion that really good products
    >sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.


    That's fine for local products. A restaurant, for example, can be
    very successful without spending a dime for advertising. Likewise a
    dry cleaners or some types of local service providers. Products that
    are nationally distributed, though, are not going to do well without
    advertising.

    >I think Apple adverts are not aimed at getting new customers but at
    >reinforcing behaviour with customers who have just bought the latest
    >iGadget. (Certainly most automobile advertising is aimed at those who
    >most recently bought the cars so they'll tout it to their friends and
    >family as well as come back next time).


    I don't think automobile advertising is intended to sell the car based
    on features and benefits. It is intended to sell a perception.
    Automobile ads attempt to make the viewer think that they are the type
    of person that should be driving this type of vehicle, or that they
    could be the type of person that would drive this type of vehicle.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2012
    #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. Bob Salomon

    Kodak to Stop Selling Traditional Cameras in U.S.

    Bob Salomon, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    630
    Robert
    Jan 14, 2004
  2. Hans-Georg Michna

    Kodak to stop selling traditional cameras

    Hans-Georg Michna, Jan 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    693
    sam ende
    Jan 16, 2004
  3. RichA

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    RichA, Feb 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    263
    nospam
    Feb 11, 2012
  4.  (Ted Nolan

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    (Ted Nolan, Feb 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    282
    Robert Coe
    Feb 12, 2012
  5. Pete A

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    Pete A, Feb 11, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    267
    Pete A
    Feb 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page