Kodak to reduce work force by 20%

No, only when the two different people make the identical incorrect
observation.

And of course you are never wrong.
--
I never said that. But we all call them the way we see them. Don't we?

Very true. I read a very informative article in Fridays Wall Street Journal.
Makes management look like the last industrial dinosaur in the US. They lost
a very lucrative cash flow system with Walgreens to Fuji. Walgreens is
replacing Kodak machines (graytag) with Fuji systems, even while still
paying on the leases for the Kodak machines. They are taking them off line
and just storing them. Walgreens is not happy with the Kodak managment.
George Eastman started the partnership back in like 1909 I think.

--
David Holliday
HollidayPhoto
www.HollidayPhoto.com



"John Horner" wrote in message
...


I think Kodak's problems have more to do with poor organization than
with
people abandoning film...

The precipitous decline in their major marketplace is issue #1, Kodak's
poor
management is right behind at #2.

"Mark A" wrote in message
...

People just aren't buying film the way they used to...

Maybe, but I am sure the reason goes way beyond that.
--
Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003
results
are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering
declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are
flocking
to
digital in droves.

Have y'all noticed that Kodak seems to be the only film company falling on
its sword these days? Fuji, Ilford, Agfa, etc aren't in the same headlong
rush to chop film, go digital, lay off thousands. Kodak has seen film sales
drop, but so have the others, and only Kodak is having seizures over it.
That's why their bonds are now classed in the lowest category above junk
bond status and their stockholders are organizing to sue Kodak management to
stop the insanity.

Kodak cut its stock dividend (in November I think) and is laying off all
those people to generate cash for investiment in digital products. They are
using these methods to come up with the investment money because the
horrific interest rates they'd be paying because of their crummy bond
ratings if they borrowed the money using common business borrowing methods
(loans, bonds, etc).

Bob in Las Vegas

"JRF" wrote in message
news:kcIQb.50270$Xq2.33155@fed1read07...
Have y'all noticed that Kodak seems to be the only film company falling on
its sword these days? Fuji, Ilford, Agfa, etc aren't in the same headlong
rush to chop film, go digital, lay off thousands. Kodak has seen film
sales
drop, but so have the others, and only Kodak is having seizures over it.
That's why their bonds are now classed in the lowest category above junk
bond status and their stockholders are organizing to sue Kodak management
to
stop the insanity.

Kodak cut its stock dividend (in November I think) and is laying off all
those people to generate cash for investiment in digital products. They
are
using these methods to come up with the investment money because the
horrific interest rates they'd be paying because of their crummy bond
ratings if they borrowed the money using common business borrowing methods
(loans, bonds, etc).

Bob in Las Vegas

In all fairness, Ilford and Agfa's film business is significantly smaller
than Kodak and they derive a miniscule (or zero) part of their revenue from
color film, which is what is killing Kodak as consumers move toward digital.

Fuji is a huge conglomerate that has been taking a beating for years to sell
film at cutthroat prices to take market share from Kodak. It may appear to
you to be a film company, but Fuji Heavy Industries has many other
businesses. They are the owner of Subaru automobile manufacturing as well as
aerospace, industrial products, and eco-technology. The other business make
up the shortfall if film profits.

Fuji also makes digital cameras using their own technology and manufacturing
resources, not just resells cameras made by others like Kodak does.

I think Kodak is being hit with a double whammy:

- The casual snapshot market revolves around mass-marketed color print film,
which is Kodak's best-selling product line. (Ilford and Agfa sell almost
entirely to advanced and professional photographers, whose market is smaller
but not declining as fast.)

- From about 1930 to 1980, Kodak had almost no competition in the U.S. mass
market. Those green Fuji boxes weren't there. Agfa and Ilford products
were found at camera stores. There was a small showing of Ansco products at
well-stocked camera counters, but Kodak was *everywhere*.

Now the green Fuji boxes are everywhere too, and people like them!

"Michael A. Covington" wrote
in message ...
I think Kodak is being hit with a double whammy:

- The casual snapshot market revolves around mass-marketed color print
film,
which is Kodak's best-selling product line. (Ilford and Agfa sell almost
entirely to advanced and professional photographers, whose market is
smaller
but not declining as fast.)

- From about 1930 to 1980, Kodak had almost no competition in the U.S.
mass
market. Those green Fuji boxes weren't there. Agfa and Ilford products
were found at camera stores. There was a small showing of Ansco products
at
well-stocked camera counters, but Kodak was *everywhere*.

Now the green Fuji boxes are everywhere too, and people like them!

Not to mention store branded film sold at Wal-Mart and most grocery, drug,
and discount stores (just like most of the other products that are store
branded).

friend? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:15:10 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

do not forget Eastman as large chemical company, do not forget other
bits and pieces (pharmaceuticals).
Fuji manufactures excellent films, better than Kodak, Subaru kicks
**** out of similar products from GM or Ford,

Sabaru is a GM product.

Nick

do not forget Eastman as large chemical company, do not forget other
bits and pieces (pharmaceuticals).
Fuji manufactures excellent films, better than Kodak, Subaru kicks
**** out of similar products from GM or Ford,

Sabaru is a GM product.

Nick

I don't know about Sabaru, but Subaru is owned by Fuji Heavy Industries, a
Japanese conglomerate:
http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/

Are you thinking of Saab, which was purchased by GM (just the automobile
business of Saab)?

"friend®" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:15:10 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

do not forget Eastman as large chemical company, do not forget other
bits and pieces (pharmaceuticals).
Fuji manufactures excellent films, better than Kodak, Subaru kicks
**** out of similar products from GM or Ford,
it has been said already - Kodak's senior management is UTS.

OK, I'll bite. What does UTS stand for?

Kodak was
too big for too long. Remember format 126, 110, Disk, APS? All were
big flop. Kodak for too long had unjustified influence over the whole
industry, nice to see them going down.

The 126 and 110 formats were a huge success with amateur snapshooters.
They spurred a dramatic expansion of picture taking. APS is the best film
based system ever designed for snapshots. Marketing was poorly done in this
country and many photofinishers gouged their customers on the price of pan
prints. People that use it love it, but most people wont pay extra for it.
Disc had its adherants, but I wont try to defend it.


In all fairness, Ilford and Agfa's film business is significantly smaller
than Kodak and they derive a miniscule (or zero) part of their revenue
from
color film, which is what is killing Kodak as consumers move toward
digital.

Fuji is a huge conglomerate that has been taking a beating for years to
sell
film at cutthroat prices to take market share from Kodak. It may appear
to
you to be a film company, but Fuji Heavy Industries has many other
businesses. They are the owner of Subaru automobile manufacturing as well
as
aerospace, industrial products, and eco-technology. The other business
make
up the shortfall if film profits.

Fuji, like Kodak, has made plenty of money from film over the years.
The film business is still profitable, but now it is shrinking.


Fuji also makes digital cameras using their own technology and
manufacturing
resources, not just resells cameras made by others like Kodak does.

friendï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ wrote:
There is not one feature that would justify buying APS.

I think there is one : the mid-roll-change function. When you are on
holidays, taking photos outside with 100ASA and inside with 400 is very
easy as you can change your roll even if it is not finished, and then
reuse it when you are again outside...
Of course this funcion "exists" on medium format film ,where you can
have multiple chargers for your camera (see the Rollei series 600x), but

- I would not take a Rollei ($7000 with a good lens) on holidays
- I cannot even afford buying it...

I bought a Vectis S1 (Minolta reflex APS) in 1998, when I thought there
will be more APS films in the future. It is a pitty that film
manufacturers did not make more than a few films for APS (Fuji did APS
dias ,but they were expensive and I found them only in Germany, not in
France, and Agfa has now discontinued their 100ASA Futura film, which
was really excellent with fine grain and saturated colors), and that
Minolta did not made better lenses (the best lens has f/3.5 !!). But I
won't regret having bought it, as it is really very practical on
holidays (and I could buy a 400mm lens -equivalent to 500mm in 135- for
less than $300).