What are Kodak's true motives?

[super8man]

I find it funny NOBODY knows how many freaking K40 carts are sold in any country/world. Really...

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Reflex wrote:

All of you: Please stop with the consipracy theories and the "they're evil and ignoring their customer" arguments. The stark reality is that K-40 sales are irrelevant to Kodak's bottom line, and since equipment isn't being made sales will only continue to drop.

That is just so true.

I am really surprised that people seem to think Kodak wants to cut K40 JUST to be evil and because they do not care about their customers, and it all just depends on those stupid bean counters that doesen´t know that the whole world just LOVES K40 and wants to shoot loads and loads of carts every day! :roll:

Kodak wants to make money as every other company does, if they do not see it profitable to continue K40 in super8 then of course they will cut the production, I would have if I was Kodak! :roll:

Just think about it, they need to be making money if Kodak wants to survive at all, if they just continued to make K40 and losing money just to be nice to all those K40 shooters they would eventually go out of business, and then we´d all be in REAL deep shit!

[onsuper8]

Yup, Kent I'd be agreeing with that...

Money - Shareholders - Profit

And with Kodak taking a hammering from digital they've simply taken a look at their portfolio.

[wahiba]

I am amazed Kodak has kept Super 8 on the go for so long. Even now it is only Kodachrome with its antiquated processing system that has had its day.

I reckon if it were down to the bean counters Kodak would be getting out of the celluloid and silver market asap.

Even my two local flea pits are going digital, thanks to a UK lottery grant. The good part is they have to show minority films.

Quid pro quo - new technolgy - more choice.

[Juergen]

I find it funny NOBODY knows how many freaking K40 carts are sold in any country/world. Really...

Well, of course we know that. The Swiss lab is processing 100,000 carts per year (for the whole world except USA), in Germany, 30,000 carts per year have been sold in 2004.

[kentbulza]

In comparison, Kodak sold 990,000 digital cameras in July through September of last year alone, with a wholesale value of just over $224-million.

And lost money on every one.

You're wrong.

April 22nd, 2005 news release pulled from Clearstation:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. (EK) posted a quarterly net loss on Friday as sales in its traditional film business fell faster than expected, overshadowing solid growth in digital photography, and its shares tumbled as much as 10 percent."

In CY2004, they maintained a gross profit margin of 30.78% over their full product line with an EBITDA of $243.00M in 12 months.

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. re-read the press release: "over their full product line" INCLUDES film. Kodak has never released profits on their digital products separately ever. They have promised to quarter after quarter, but they keep procrastinating, obviously because it's still not profitable. They are asked EVERY quarter by analysts and EVERY quarter they hedge. In the last quarter they said they "almost broke even" on digital, but still refused to release numbers. They specifically mentioned the ultra low margins on low-end digital cameras. That's why Kyocera and Nikon have both exited that market.

Look over the notes on the last quarter and find the profit on digital:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_fil ... Q05mda.pdf

Kodak makes money and pricipally on motion picture (what they call EI -- entertainment imaging).

Kodak's digital strategy is completely flawed. Without an expendable, the market will slowly go to low-cost Chinese manufacturers. They have never been successful at cameras, and I'm not sure why they think they could be now.

Kodak should focus on film, film related businesses (scanning, telecine), commercial printing and large output printing (and medical). Each one compliments another -- you don't need to transfer if you started digital. But you need film for large output. You need film for theatrical release. You need telecine when you want to take that theatrical release to DVD. You need a scanner to move film to lare output.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Kodak should focus on film, film related businesses (scanning, telecine), commercial printing and large output printing (and medical). Each one compliments another -- you don't need to transfer if you started digital. But you need film for large output. You need film for theatrical release. You need telecine when you want to take that theatrical release to DVD. You need a scanner to move film to lare output.

Until the digital has come so far it wins the battle, if Kodak then would just have filmproducts and service they are in big trouble.

There is no doubt in my mind that there will be digital cameras and ultra-HD cameras that surpass the quality of film. It is just a matter of when.

How much better isn´t the video cameras and digital cameras now compared to 15 - 20 years ago? How good will they be in another 20 years? I bet it will blow our minds.

[super8man]

I find it funny NOBODY knows how many freaking K40 carts are sold in any country/world. Really...

Well, of course we know that. The Swiss lab is processing 100,000 carts per year (for the whole world except USA), in Germany, 30,000 carts per year have been sold in 2004.

Like I said, since noone can offer numbers for the USA, total production is still a COMPLETE mystery.

Cheers and keep on counting!

m

[marc]

Reflex wrote:

All of you: Please stop with the consipracy theories and the "they're evil and ignoring their customer" arguments. The stark reality is that K-40 sales are irrelevant to Kodak's bottom line, and since equipment isn't being made sales will only continue to drop.

That is just so true.

I am really surprised that people seem to think Kodak wants to cut K40 JUST to be evil and because they do not care about their customers, and it all just depends on those stupid bean counters that doesen´t know that the whole world just LOVES K40 and wants to shoot loads and loads of carts every day! :roll:

Kodak wants to make money as every other company does, if they do not see it profitable to continue K40 in super8 then of course they will cut the production, I would have if I was Kodak! :roll:

Just think about it, they need to be making money if Kodak wants to survive at all, if they just continued to make K40 and losing money just to be nice to all those K40 shooters they would eventually go out of business, and then we´d all be in REAL deep shit!

I am sure that most people here are intelligent enough to know that it is about money and the bottom line. Kodak is a business not a non profit organization whose purpose is to mentor up and coming filmmakers. The issue is the round-about way that they explain their actions. They can't handle a direct explanation because they would not be able to handle the feedback from customers. With the different reasons that Kodak has given for discontinuing K40, naturally people with half a brain are going to analyze them and come to the conclusion that something just does not fit. It is kind of like Kodak treats it's customers like babies and little children and tells little white lies because it feels that they cannot handle the blunt facts. So, just as you would with a child, they sugar coat things to relieve some of the pressure on themselves and paint a more shock obsorbing picture of the situation. This is the whole PR machine syndrome. I would have more respect for Kodak if I did not get a different answer from each different Kodak employee and contradictory reasons for their actions.

[MovieStuff]

This is the whole PR machine syndrome. I would have more respect for Kodak if I did not get a different answer from each different Kodak employee and contradictory reasons for their actions.

Exactly.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

And as for digital, I'd call upon the digital decline about to come as everyone and their dog is soon to have a digital cam which means the market will be satisified and they'll all see those disadvantages in digital besides quick convenience which don't even out less quality.

The average consumer, which represents the majority, doesn't care about quality as much as they do simplicity and low cost. As long as it is "good enough" and simple to use, then digital will get all the funding. Thus, it is the inadequacies of the user that determine the lowest common denominator and not the superiority of one format over another. The public has had almost 100 years to master film and it hasn't happened yet. There will be no paradigm shift in their values or techincal skills that will suddenly make film more viable or desirable to the average Joe shooting home movies of his family. Film is simply too expensive and complicated for the average person, regardless of the results. What we feel about it means nothing to the corporate world because we are the minority. Not fun to admit but that's the fact.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[ccortez]

There will be no paradigm shift in their values or techincal skills that will suddenly make film more viable or desirable to the average Joe shooting home movies of his family.

What about the impermanence of digital photos? Where are those cute digital pictures of the kids 20 years later, once the computer has been replaced, CDs scratched or lost, hard drives failed... I wonder if there's going to be anything to show for the digital revolution a generation after the fact.

When I was a baby, my mom would take polaroids of me once a month and send them out to all the family members. I still have some of those polaroids. (Cute.)

[tlatosmd]

I'm not talking about the average user, I'm talking about those pros and semi-pros who use DV cams because they think film is too expensive, don't know S8 is still around or that it's cheaper than DV, or only know very bad examples of S8, like dirty, shakey footage, outdated stocks with loud vintage colors, and flickering, hotspotted clips, projected at twice the speed they were shot at, and those projected images shot off a wall or screen with a videocam.

[sonickel]

As part of my librarianship degree, we learned about the immense challenge of preserving digital information. With rapid obsolescence, and the fragility of the media, we can't just shove archival materials into storage for 50 years and forget about them.

To combat the problem, archivists are recommending refreshing the information every YEAR, and upgrading information to be compatible with new computer systems every 3 years. This is going to be extremely costly, and of course will be low priority, until crucial information goes missing, and we lose much of the historical record.

It's a problem facing businesses of all sizes, government departments, as well as families who may well lose their precious family photos when their computer crashes.

Another reason why I prefer film

[MovieStuff]

There will be no paradigm shift in their values or techincal skills that will suddenly make film more viable or desirable to the average Joe shooting home movies of his family.

What about the impermanence of digital photos?

I think that went with the impermanence of the family in the digital photos.

I'm not talking about the average user, I'm talking about those pros and semi-pros who use DV cams because they think film is too expensive, don't know S8 is still around or that it's cheaper than DV, or only know very bad examples of S8, like dirty, shakey footage, outdated stocks with loud vintage colors, and flickering, hotspotted clips, projected at twice the speed they were shot at, and those projected images shot off a wall or screen with a videocam.

Hell, that's a minority within a minority. You are talking about sub-sect within a sub-sect and hardly anything that would sway the market. The world is going to digital and there isn't much we can do about it except bitch, I'm afraid.

Roger