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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak CX6200 vs. Old NiMH batteries | Roger Stone | Digital Photography | 6 | June 28th 04 03:39 PM |
Add Kodak Brown to KRST? | Mike | In The Darkroom | 12 | May 5th 04 09:33 AM |
I'm guessing that Kodak will kill Kodachrome within the next 24 months | John Horner | Film & Labs | 17 | December 22nd 03 02:59 PM |
Kodak shifts focus (WSJ article) | David Foy | Film & Labs | 2 | October 1st 03 11:26 PM |