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
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
having worked there
consumer film was where the big money was too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system was hacked out of it as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for consumer applications would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand, but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of workers and environmentalism, etc. but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been able to invest that consumer film money better I think -- Dale |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , Dale
wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 07:42 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and prepress labs and going to other focuses might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license intellectual property maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual property too they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne propreitary systems I think they should start with capture though, professional cameras/lenses lighting, etc. -- Dale |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , Dale
wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and prepress labs and going to other focuses it's too late for kodak. might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license intellectual property maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual property too that's about all they have now. they should sell their patents to someone and call it a day. they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne propreitary systems I think they should start with capture though, professional cameras/lenses lighting, etc. what could they possibly do in that space that existing players haven't done? nothing. kodak never made cameras that were any good, although some were quite popular such as the instamatic. the kodak dslr hybrids were retrofitted canon/nikon cameras. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 2014-02-10 18:36:46 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Dale wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. it isn't too late for Kodak, it might make the investments in digital across the imaging board, staarting with their focus on commercial and prepress labs and going to other focuses it's too late for kodak. might be some hybrid stuff out their too, they could use/license intellectual property maybe even some analog stuff that they could use/license intellectual property too that's about all they have now. they should sell their patents to someone and call it a day. they might not be a propreitary closed system dealer in all areas, but starting with open standards they might be an open systems player, and eventually perhaps develop themselves into intellectual property for ne propreitary systems I think they should start with capture though, professional cameras/lenses lighting, etc. what could they possibly do in that space that existing players haven't done? nothing. kodak never made cameras that were any good, although some were quite popular such as the instamatic. the kodak dslr hybrids were retrofitted canon/nikon cameras. I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR "wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT. -- Michael |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] In article 2014021500570875641-adunc79617@mypacksnet, Michael wrote: I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR "wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT. -- Michael Indeed. While many of the Retina series were overly complex (they were German, after all) and mechanically troublesome, you cant say they didn't take a hell of a picture. Some of the best pictures I've ever taken were with the utterly manual Retina IIa I used to carry everywhere. Granted, that was 40 years ago, and the camera wasn't new even then - but Kodak had their glory says. At one time, I could open the Kodak catalog at my camera store, and order every single thing a serious photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on to mounting supplies. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
In article , nospam wrote: In article , Dale wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. The second mouse gets the cheese. -- "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On 02/10/2014 10:55 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , Dale wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. The second mouse gets the cheese. Reminds me of working for Bell Labs. They invented the transistor, for goodness sake. Yet they could not manufacture them very well. I got the ones I needed when working there, from Philco, RCA, and Texas Instruments. Raytheon made them too. Once I absolutely had to get a Western Electric point contact transistor. A guy I knew at a nearby military research and development site stole a bunch for me. Inside the company, none were available. Xerox PARC pretty much invented the first Apple computer but management was afraid it would bring on the paperless society (remember that) and they were in the paper-copying business, so they refused to go on with it. Corporations have a lot to answer for. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B Registered Machine 1935521. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://linuxcounter.net ^^-^^ 12:30:01 up 5:25, 2 users, load average: 4.33, 4.48, 4.64 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , Dale wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was the key is the word *was*. although kodak pioneered digital photography, they completely failed to manage the transition to digital and went bankrupt. The second mouse gets the cheese. Sometimes the third or fourth. But that's a good analogy, the computer mouse didn't take off till the Macintosh in 1984, when it had been demonstrated in 1968 (so it had to exist before that) and work done on it at PARC. Michael |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
my take on Kodak downfall
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:28:28 -0500, Dale
wrote: having worked there consumer film was where the big money was too often consumer systems were developed and then a professional system was hacked out of it as opposed to developing professional systems and watering them down for consumer applications would have taken some quick work too keep up with the consumer demand, but Kodak was big enough to keep up with that I think then there is the general USA/UN/WTO issue of fair trade versus free trade allowing cheap imports from places with less consideration of workers and environmentalism, etc. but Kodak had plants in Mexico after NAFTA, so they should have been able to invest that consumer film money better I think There was a story going around about the Kodak CEO making a statement about the digital threat: "how can we stop this digital thing?" Or something like that. If true, well... Kodak's management screwed the pooch. Some of the earliest digital SLRs were Kodak conversions. Kodak sold the first full frame DSLR! Granted, it wasn't great, but they had the tech and just let it die. No excuses, this is a business school case study now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
mail to kodak person: kodak V550) | santosh | Digital Photography | 2 | December 16th 05 08:54 PM |
Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | October 19th 05 10:44 PM |
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 software ,unable to down load from kodak | JSN61 | Digital Photography | 1 | August 9th 04 01:48 AM |
Kodak T400CN vs Kodak BW400CN vs Fuji Neopan 400Cn (C-41) | Chris Wilkins | Film & Labs | 0 | May 14th 04 10:50 PM |