If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy
I used to work in Kodak R&D. (too much corporate culture and middle
management) If I was a stakeholder in Kodak's reorganization, I would like to see them map out the workflows of all possible imaging chains, and make business cases on hard facts as opposed to just brand value, whether they be AgX, digital, or hybrid. Where imaging chains intertsect or get jumbled I'd like to see them provide open standard solutions and play nice with other provider's. This is where brand value can lead the way. On the TV news I heard they were going to drop digital capture and focus on packaging, printers and software. Still hanging on to AgX capture? Not playing a role in digital cameras, scanners and sensors doesn't seem like someone who wants to take pictures further. -- Dale |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy
On 03/16/2012 06:25 AM, Dale wrote:
I would like to see them map out the workflows maybe use-case is a better word than workflow in the OO software sense. -- Dale |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy
In article ,
Dale wrote: I used to work in Kodak R&D. (too much corporate culture and middle management) If I was a stakeholder in Kodak's reorganization, I would like to see them map out the workflows of all possible imaging chains, and make business cases on hard facts as opposed to just brand value, whether they be AgX, digital, or hybrid. I'd like to see them preserve as much manufacturing and design documentation as possible for all the products they'll shed, and license it at no cost to anyone who is willing to make the stuff. Kodak doubtless does not want to be in the low-volume, high-price art materials market, but there's no reason the analog products should die and become impossible to ever bring back (which is what will happen without Kodak's detailed process documentation for making them) just because Kodak can't economically make them any more. Kodak could probably even derive significant tax benefits from giving all the associated intellectual property to a charity created for the purpose. Or use one they already have handy, like, say, Eastman House. But I cannot imagine how one would ever get this idea in front of the appropriate people associated with the bankruptcy. Sigh... -- Thor Lancelot Simon "The liberties...lose much of their value whenever those who have greater private means are permitted to use their advantages to control the course of public debate." -John Rawls |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy
"aruzinsky" wrote in message ... On Mar 16, 4:25 am, Dale wrote: I used to work in Kodak R&D. (too much corporate culture and middle management) If I was a stakeholder in Kodak's reorganization, I would like to see them map out the workflows of all possible imaging chains, and make business cases on hard facts as opposed to just brand value, whether they be AgX, digital, or hybrid. Where imaging chains intertsect or get jumbled I'd like to see them provide open standard solutions and play nice with other provider's. This is where brand value can lead the way. On the TV news I heard they were going to drop digital capture and focus on packaging, printers and software. Still hanging on to AgX capture? Not playing a role in digital cameras, scanners and sensors doesn't seem like someone who wants to take pictures further. -- Dale As a consumer, I have seen Kodak make some outstandingly stupid mistakes that besmirched their reputation. For example, they simultaneously marketed two very different types of swellable polymer photo paper for dye inkjet printers under the same name, "Kodak Ultima Picture Paper." The two types were only identifiable to the customer by: 1. "With Colorlast Technology" on front of package and "select paper type UPP-4-A" on back of package. 2. "Select paper type UPP-3-A" on back of package. Type 1 was the BEST swellable polymer paper ever made and Type 2 was almost the WORST ever made. Of course, confusion between the two types caused many customers to mistakenly buy Type 2 which was prone to ink pooling and therefore a complete waste of money. Then Kodak stopped making both types. Incidentally, I have 8 year old prints made with Type 1 hanging uncovered on my wall and they show no signs of deterioration. Kodak has done this in the past. They made two very different films under the name Plus-X and the same for Tri-X. One was a 35mm and roll film with a medium toe, the other was sheet film with a very long toe. The two have quite different tone rendition. Plux-X was the worst case since they sold _both_ films for roll film cameras. The long toe stuff was called Plus-X Pan Professional the other left out the professional. Kodak has also recycled trademarks many times, note that Ektar has been used for lenses and also a film, but, at least not at the same time. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak close to declaring bankruptcy | Walter Banks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | January 29th 12 12:44 PM |
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY | measekite | Digital Photography | 0 | June 12th 08 04:03 AM |
Google Bankruptcy eminent Sergie and Brin shine my shoes please | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 07 03:31 AM |
Kodak Gold 100 vs Kodak Bright Sun vs Kodak High Definition Colour Film | Graham Fountain | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | October 5th 04 12:57 AM |
Kodak T400CN vs Kodak BW400CN vs Fuji Neopan 400Cn (C-41) | Chris Wilkins | Film & Labs | 0 | May 14th 04 10:50 PM |