Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2012-02-12 18:39 , 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.

There is no requirement that a profitable company be "useful to
society". OTOH companies that employ people, or result in wealth being
invested elsewhere, are always useful to society.

In the 20th century we _have_ come to realize that some companies
benefit from the commons out of proportion to the price and provide no
maintenance or renewal to the commons. This will become increasingly at
issue in the 21st century:

ranchers using government land at near 0 cost
forestry co's (some cost)
water withdrawals (eg: Ogallala)
fisheries
polluters (esp. air and water).
oil companies
etc.

All (almost) of these activities could be conducted in a sustainable
undamaging way - in exchange for a much higher cost of goods sold.

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

Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

Socialist drivel.

Even companies providing ignoble products and services play a positive
role in the economy.

If companies had to pass a "value to society" test the result would be
worse than the worst possible combination of dictatorship and religion.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-13 18:05 , Trevor wrote:

"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".

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
"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.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
"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.

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"??

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:51:38 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
"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.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

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).

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-13, 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.

Be that as it may, if your business isn't making money it will not stay
open regardless of how pure your intentions are. Kodak was saddled with
high fixed costs and couldn't continue to operate. You have to sell off
the valuable parts of the business before you run iot flat into the ground
if you figure on having anything to pay the people you owe money to.

Bud

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 ****ed 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.

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.