Kodak to reduce work force by 20%

Mark A wrote:

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)?


GM bought 20% a few years back. Don't know if they've increased the stake.
Mazda is owned in part by Ford. Nissan is owned by somebody else. Then
you've got GM and Suzuki.

Nick

There is not one feature that would justify buying APS.

The reason that Kodak invented APS was to save money on the wasted part of
the film used for the sprockets on 135 format. 35mm film was invented for
use as a movie film which has to travel through the movie camera at 24 fps,
and was only later used in still cameras.

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)?


GM bought 20% a few years back. Don't know if they've increased the
stake.
Mazda is owned in part by Ford. Nissan is owned by somebody else. Then
you've got GM and Suzuki.

Nick

Yes, GM does own 20% of Fuji Heavy Industries, but that does not constitute
"ownership" of Subaru. 80 Percent is still Japanese owned. GM has not
increased their stake as of the April 2003 10K report to the SEC.

But it is interesting that GM benefits as Fuji kills Kodak.

Mark A wrote:

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.

Agfa derives significant revenues from color film. Have you ever heard of
Vista and Optima? Moreover they sell film to 3rd parties such as Costco
and now Walgreens for repackaging as a store brand. As broken out on
Agfa's balance sheet, Consumer Imaging constituted 30% of revenue in 1999,
declining to 22% in 2003.

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 Heavy Industries is *not* the same corporation as Fujifilm, despite
the similar name. AFAICT there is no cross-ownership, either.

One factor not yet mentioned here, nor by any of the financial pundits,
is that the US recently went thru a recession, and available jobs continue
to decline in number and in pay, so consumers are unable or unwilling to
spend on luxuries such as film and photo processing.

Mark A wrote:
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)?


GM bought 20% a few years back. Don't know if they've increased the

stake.

Mazda is owned in part by Ford. Nissan is owned by somebody else. Then
you've got GM and Suzuki.

Nick


Yes, GM does own 20% of Fuji Heavy Industries, but that does not constitute
"ownership" of Subaru. 80 Percent is still Japanese owned. GM has not
increased their stake as of the April 2003 10K report to the SEC.

But it is interesting that GM benefits as Fuji kills Kodak.

Fuji isn't killing Kodak, Kodak is killing Kodak, or rather the Kodak
management team is killing Kodak. You have a (film) market threat,
digital imaging, how do you compete with that?

First look at your market, who is most likely to benefit from digital?
Press photographers, and others who need quick turn around, like the
fashion photographer who needs to see results quickly to know whether he
can send the $250/hr model home. Who is least likely to convert to
digital, easy the people who have big investments in film cameras and
accessories. Then there is the in-between market, where the Christmas
and vacation shooters are they are unlikely to spend $300 - $500 on a
digital camera, but they are likely to spend $20 on a disposable (film)
camera, maybe one or two at Christmas and a couple during vacation. The
biggest part of the digital market today is the newly serious amateur.....

Okay, the professional, press and others is a market already covered,
because they are either buying digital lines from Nikon or Canon, or
they are investing the price of a nice car for the digital backs for
their Hassys, Mamiyas and Bronicas. Those with existing film
investments, are looking at digital scanners, so they can do the
darkroom stuff without getting wet. Minolta and Nikon seem to have this
market covered nicely. The newly serious amateur is looking at where
the pros are getting their stuff. This leaves Kodak trying to leverage
a few big bills out of the Christmas and holiday crowd, it aint going to
happen, especially the ones that are getting burned on APS!

A good market for Kodak would be film, and maybe a Micro-lab type unit,
where you put the film can in one end, and the finished negatives come
out the other, ready for scanning.

W

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Today's papers report that Kodak is about to reduce its work force
worldwide
by 20%.

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

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

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.

"friend" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:53:08 GMT, "Ron Andrews"
wrote:

"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?
in general - not so good :-{)or up the ////

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.

I beg to disagree. I have no inclination to dig out stats regarding
use of various film formats, but 135 was never really challanged by
126 or 110. In particular 110, with its abysmal quality.
APS is the biggest con in the industry in XX century. It promised a
lot but failed to deliver. There is nothing that would be better than
135, which is much cheaper and much more popular. There is not one
feature that would justify buying APS. Marketing? Kodak and others
spent too much pedling substandard product. Disc suffered the same low
quality as 110.

I doubt that there is anything I can write that will convince "friend",
but my opinions differ. I believe some of the facts are contrary to his or
her assertions as well. Some of this disagreement may come from a different
point of view. I understand that most of the traffic in this NG consists of
enthusiasts. I'm attempting to represent rank amateurs mostly by observing
what goes on in photolabs.
It wasn't until the 70's that 135 format surpassed the volume of 126
and 110 for color neg films. Go ask someone who was in the photolab business
30 years ago.
"Friend" is right that there is not a single reason to choose APS.
There are several. While my SLR is the camera I use most, there are many
reasons why I might choose my Elph jr (APS). It is smaller--great for a hike
or a ski trip. I appreciate date and time back printing. Every once and
awhile I like to use the pan format. If I'm looking for a particular
negative to get a reprint, I can sort through the index prints and find it
in 30 seconds if it is APS. If it is 135 it will take me 10-15 minutes.
Midroll change sounds good, but I've not used it. I've rarely had a problem
loading 35mm film, but I know some people who need the drop in loading.
Disc suffered from poor quality, but if you claim that negative size
matters, you can't claim that it suffered from the "same" low quality as
110. Here are some image sizes:

Format HxW Area
135 24x36 864
126 28x28 784
110 13x17 221
disc 8x10 80
APS 17x30 510

The area difference between disc and 110 is almost as big as the difference
between 110 and 135. Here's a reference:
http://www.geocities.com/thombell/filmimage.html

In article ,
friend? wrote:

I doubt it was the reason. In my view, Kodak tried to get some
business lost due to slow SLR market, saturation in compact cameras.
They tried to create demand for some sort of novelty. Otherwise it was
total flop.


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:27:27 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

There is not one feature that would justify buying APS.

The reason that Kodak invented APS was to save money on the wasted part of
the film used for the sprockets on 135 format. 35mm film was invented for
use as a movie film which has to travel through the movie camera at 24 fps,
and was only later used in still cameras.



Actuall APS was far from being a total flop, and the same goes for Disc,
110 and 126. New formats were introduced as a stepping stone to bring
more of the population into taking pictures.
After every new film format introduction, film sales increased. Is
that's what you call a flop?

"friend®" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:29:33 GMT, "Ron Andrews"

I doubt that there is anything I can write that will convince
"friend",

good argument DOES!!!

but my opinions differ. I believe some of the facts are contrary to his
or
her assertions as well.

His

Some of this disagreement may come from a different
point of view. I understand that most of the traffic in this NG consists
of
enthusiasts. I'm attempting to represent rank amateurs mostly by
observing
what goes on in photolabs.
It wasn't until the 70's that 135 format surpassed the volume of 126
and 110 for color neg films. Go ask someone who was in the photolab
business
30 years ago.

Ask, when format 110 was introduced,

1971

ask, when minilabs were
introduced.

early 1980's

Check, when 126 was introduced

1962

and how popular it was at
the time 110 emerged.

I'm not sure of the exact proportions. 126 had probably peaked, but was
still quite popular.

One provision - I am not familiar with US
market, I am talking about the Old World.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the questions. The 135 format
didn't take off with snapshooters until the 1980's. the Canon SureShot was
one of the key developments. Prior to that time, the format was used mostly
by enthusiasts (people who know an f-stop from a bus stop).


"Friend" is right that there is not a single reason to choose APS.
There are several. While my SLR is the camera I use most, there are many
reasons why I might choose my Elph jr (APS). It is smaller--great for a
hike
or a ski trip.

in that case I would take a disposable camera instead, snorkeling
likewise.

My Elph jr produces images that are far superior to any single use
cameras.

I appreciate date and time back printing.

You can get it on almost every SLR

I've seen a lot of 135 cameras that expose the date on the film. I like
having the time and date printed on hte back of the print and not exposed on
the film. Are there 135 cameras that do this?


Every once and
awhile I like to use the pan format.

You can crop 135 to your heart content, APS does just that. It takes
full frame and instructs a printer to crop. It means, it wastes a lot.
Why not use panoramic disposable instead?

I don't want an entire roll of pan prints, just an occaisional image. I
could reprint and enlarge, but I can get the pan print in the original order
with APS.

If I'm looking for a particular
negative to get a reprint, I can sort through the index prints and find
it
in 30 seconds if it is APS.
Not if you need to check a hundred of index prints, it only works on
small scale.
If it is 135 it will take me 10-15 minutes.

Most current minilabs provide an index print for 135.

I'll have to shop araound.

Midroll change sounds good, but I've not used it. I've rarely had a
problem
loading 35mm film, but I know some people who need the drop in loading.

But you miss huge number of different films, APS is limited to just a
few.

I agree. that is why mid-roll change is not as useful as it might have
been.

Disc suffered from poor quality, but if you claim that negative size
matters, you can't claim that it suffered from the "same" low quality as
110. Here are some image sizes:

never said otherwise, both are unacceptable, for me at least.

Format HxW Area
135 24x36 864
126 28x28 784
110 13x17 221
disc 8x10 80
APS 17x30 510

The area difference between disc and 110 is almost as big as the
difference
between 110 and 135. Here's a reference:
http://www.geocities.com/thombell/filmimage.html


If I only had one camera, it would be a 35mm SLR, but I have several.
My APS cameras get some use.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:31:48 -0000, Bill Tuthill
wrote:


....

Agfa derives significant revenues from color film. Have you ever heard of
Vista and Optima? Moreover they sell film to 3rd parties such as Costco

....

FWIW, Small point, I am pretty sure the AGFA COSTCO relationship
ended several years ago and COSTCO is now a KODAK shop.



Best Regards.

*****************************************
Boycott list:

Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video, Heinz
Foods, Ontario & Quebec provinces,

Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."

For those who are unclear about the situation, California is the Clinton - Davis model for the rest of the United States of America.