[Article] Kodak Leads in U.S. Digital-Camera Market

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
Market, Research Firm Says"

http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> "Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
> Market, Research Firm Says"
>
> http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3

Actually, it looks like Canon is gaining faster than Kodak. Looks like
a three horse race, Kodak, Canon, and Sony.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <w%Sfe.9$rt1.6@fe04.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> > "Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
> > Market, Research Firm Says"
> >
> > http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3
>
> Actually, it looks like Canon is gaining faster than Kodak. Looks like
> a three horse race, Kodak, Canon, and Sony.
>

I look for Canon to continue gaining. When looking for a relatively
cheap point and shoot camera for my wife I looked at a Kodak and a
Canon. The Canon Powershot A510 won out for several reasons.

While both got good reviews the Canon lets you set the JPG comression
the Kodak didn't.

While I like my Kodak DX6490, I'd like to be able to set the compression
level as well as have the ability to save to a non-compressed format,
preferably RAW, but TIFF would be OK as well.

When I contacted Kodak I was told they'd keep it in mind for future
models. I wouldn't think it would take much to make a firmware update to
address these shortcomings.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[russell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It maybe a surprise, but Kodak are a very strong company with fingers in
lots of different pies.

I personally like them as a company, but that is neither here nor there.

Just for info, pre Canon D30 DSLR's were developed in conjunction with
Kodak, such as the EOS DCS1, DCS3 and D2000 cameras.

I was once of the proud owners of one of their first digital compacts, and
despite the size, it was faultless and so were they as a company. But I
sold it because I preferred film at that point.



"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
> "Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
> Market, Research Firm Says"
>
> http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

KennyJr wrote:
> In article <w%Sfe.9$rt1.6@fe04.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>
>>Allodoxaphobia wrote:
>>
>>>"Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
>>> Market, Research Firm Says"
>>>
>>> http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3
>>
>>Actually, it looks like Canon is gaining faster than Kodak. Looks like
>>a three horse race, Kodak, Canon, and Sony.
>>
>
>
> I look for Canon to continue gaining. When looking for a relatively
> cheap point and shoot camera for my wife I looked at a Kodak and a
> Canon. The Canon Powershot A510 won out for several reasons.
>
> While both got good reviews the Canon lets you set the JPG comression
> the Kodak didn't.
>
> While I like my Kodak DX6490, I'd like to be able to set the compression
> level as well as have the ability to save to a non-compressed format,
> preferably RAW, but TIFF would be OK as well.
>
> When I contacted Kodak I was told they'd keep it in mind for future
> models. I wouldn't think it would take much to make a firmware update to
> address these shortcomings.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I also found that my first digital camera (DX3600) had some
shortcomings, all of which I passed to Kodak. My current one (DX6440)
addressed every one of those shortcomings, and more. Now, there are
only a couple of items I would like to see changed, and the compression
issue is one of them. As for firmware updates, it seems that Kodak
policy is NOT to make 'improvements' with firmware, only to correct
performance 'bugs' this way. The policy seems geared toward selling a
new camera, rather than improving the operation of the old one.
Indeed, the newer version of my camera does have two compression
settings, unfortunately neither is 'uncompressed'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And Kodak cameras are all made in the good old USA?

--
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
> "Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
> Market, Research Firm Says"
>
> http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> And Kodak cameras are all made in the good old USA?
>
I seriously doubt that. It is a global economy.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[roy]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
> "Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
> Market, Research Firm Says"
>
> http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3


So What?

Should I be very concerned, I have 2 Nikons and my wife has a Fuji.

Will I be looked down upon because I do not own a Kodak

Will my photos not be as good?

Could it have something to do with the unreliability of Kodak Cameras?

Or is it just that Joe Public is as stupid as the advertising indusdtry
thinks he is.

Roy G

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roy wrote:
> "Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
>
>>"Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
>>Market, Research Firm Says"
>>
>>http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3
>
>
>
> So What?
>
> Should I be very concerned, I have 2 Nikons and my wife has a Fuji.
>
> Will I be looked down upon because I do not own a Kodak
>
> Will my photos not be as good?
>
> Could it have something to do with the unreliability of Kodak Cameras?
>
> Or is it just that Joe Public is as stupid as the advertising indusdtry
> thinks he is.
>
> Roy G
>
>
Sure, Roy, your Nikon and Fuji will cease to function when their market
share drops below 5%... Grin.
And if Kodak cameras were that unreliable, don't you think sales would
drop, rather than rise? After all, what does Kodak know about making
cameras, they haven't been at it but a few years, right?
And, yes, Joe Public IS about as stupid as the advertising industry
thinks he is, otherwise all those companies like Canon and Sony would
stop advertising, right?



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> ...
> Actually, ROI and ASP should be more of
> interest. Selling mass quanitites of
> low end cameras may not make Kodak
> any money. They lost $142 million in
> Q12005.

I have to give the Kodak managers credit
in spite of the losses. They were the biggest
manufacturer in the world of a product (film)
that is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Although there's no way they can arrest the
slide in film, paper and chemical sales, they
took the bull by the horns and decided to
invest billions in new products to try to
keep the company alive and competive, even
if it did mean they would lose a ton of
money re-orienting and downsizing the company.

If they continue to execute their strategy
successfully, eventually they'll make profits
again - although probably on a significantly
smaller scale than in the heyday of film.

However, as everyone said, this is irrelevant
to the camera buyer. The only important thing
to camera owners is that the manufacturer of
their camera continue to stay in business so that
parts and service remain available. And even
that may not be too important since repair costs
are so high these days and the cost of new
cameras with greater functionality is dropping.

Alan

 

[roy]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gjdge.2593$rt1.2551@fe04.lga...
> Roy wrote:
>> "Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
>>
>>>"Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
>>>Market, Research Firm Says"
>>>
>>>http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3
>>
>>
>>
>> So What?
>>
>> Should I be very concerned, I have 2 Nikons and my wife has a Fuji.
>>
>> Will I be looked down upon because I do not own a Kodak
>>
>> Will my photos not be as good?
>>
>> Could it have something to do with the unreliability of Kodak Cameras?
>>
>> Or is it just that Joe Public is as stupid as the advertising indusdtry
>> thinks he is.
>>
>> Roy G
> Sure, Roy, your Nikon and Fuji will cease to function when their market
> share drops below 5%... Grin.
> And if Kodak cameras were that unreliable, don't you think sales would
> drop, rather than rise? After all, what does Kodak know about making
> cameras, they haven't been at it but a few years, right?
> And, yes, Joe Public IS about as stupid as the advertising industry thinks
> he is, otherwise all those companies like Canon and Sony would stop
> advertising, right?
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net


Hi there

That's right Kodak did stop making cameras for a very long time, and only
restarted when APS was foisted upon Joe Public.

I am assuming that they do make them, and don't just have them made by
someone else (in darkest China).

Kodak have managed to retain a very good reputation among the Gen Public,
but their cameras are no better than any others.

The main point of my post was that Market Share should be of little interest
to photographers, but of considerable importance to Employees and
Shareholders.

The bulk of their Camera sales are to the General public whose knowledge of
Photography and Cameras is miniscule.

We, (being interested and interesting photographers) have almost nothing in
common with the vast majority of Kodak Camera owners.

So what is the point of all this crowing about the Big Yellow Box.

Roy G

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:gjdge.2593$rt1.2551@fe04.lga...
>
>>Roy wrote:
>>
>>>"Allodoxaphobia" <bit-bucket@config.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnd7vkq3.bnp.bit-bucket@shell.config.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Kodak Retains Lead Over Japanese Giants in U.S. Digital-Camera
>>>>Market, Research Firm Says"
>>>>
>>>>http/biz.yahoo.com/ap/050509/digital_cameras.html?.v=3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So What?
>>>
>>>Should I be very concerned, I have 2 Nikons and my wife has a Fuji.
>>>
>>>Will I be looked down upon because I do not own a Kodak
>>>
>>>Will my photos not be as good?
>>>
>>>Could it have something to do with the unreliability of Kodak Cameras?
>>>
>>>Or is it just that Joe Public is as stupid as the advertising indusdtry
>>>thinks he is.
>>>
>>>Roy G
>>
>>Sure, Roy, your Nikon and Fuji will cease to function when their market
>>share drops below 5%... Grin.
>>And if Kodak cameras were that unreliable, don't you think sales would
>>drop, rather than rise? After all, what does Kodak know about making
>>cameras, they haven't been at it but a few years, right?
>>And, yes, Joe Public IS about as stupid as the advertising industry thinks
>>he is, otherwise all those companies like Canon and Sony would stop
>>advertising, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
> Hi there
>
> That's right Kodak did stop making cameras for a very long time, and only
> restarted when APS was foisted upon Joe Public.

Oh? When did they not make cameras? I must have missed that.

>
> I am assuming that they do make them, and don't just have them made by
> someone else (in darkest China).
>

Mine says 'Made in China, designed in Japan, for Eastman Kodak, US.
It is rather difficult to find ANYTHING that isn't made in China these
days... Sigh.
The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.

> Kodak have managed to retain a very good reputation among the Gen Public,
> but their cameras are no better than any others.
>

No argument there. They do tend to cater to the lower end (most
numerous) of the market, with a small number of products for the high end.


> The main point of my post was that Market Share should be of little interest
> to photographers, but of considerable importance to Employees and
> Shareholders.
>

Quite true.

> The bulk of their Camera sales are to the General public whose knowledge of
> Photography and Cameras is miniscule.
>

True again, as mentioned above. This is where the volume, and the
money, is.


> We, (being interested and interesting photographers) have almost nothing in
> common with the vast majority of Kodak Camera owners.
>

But don't discount ALL Kodak camera owners in that. Some of us are
interested, just not in the same way.


> So what is the point of all this crowing about the Big Yellow Box.
>
> Roy G
>
>
>
>
>
Well, journalists must find SOMETHING to write about when they aren't
bashing GWB... GRin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xuvge.2127$i03.484@fe06.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.
>

I totally disagree with this statement. What's wrong with earning a
living wage & having decent benifits? I beleive the problem is at the
other end of the labor market. Do CEOs really need 7+ figure salaries to
live on?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

KennyJr wrote:
> In article <Xuvge.2127$i03.484@fe06.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>
>>The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.
>>
>
>
> I totally disagree with this statement. What's wrong with earning a
> living wage & having decent benifits? I beleive the problem is at the
> other end of the labor market. Do CEOs really need 7+ figure salaries to
> live on?
>
No, of course they don't, but then at that point, they control their own
salaries.. Hiring the fox to guard the hen house is always a lousy
idea. But there is NO question that companies move manufacturing out of
the US because labor costs are too high here.
Look at the Kodak statement:
Made in China (where labor is CHEAP, and safety, and worker treatement
is poor).
Designed in Japan, where so much electronic design expertise resides,
and where photography is virtually a national obsession.
To Kodak Specifications. WE seem to plan, and do market research, and
guide the form, and nature, of the product for execution by others.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lRuge.1868$WQ3.1120@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

> The main point of my post was that Market Share should be of little
interest
> to photographers, but of considerable importance to Employees and
> Shareholders.

Actually, ROI and ASP should be more of interest. Selling mass quanitites of
low end cameras may not make Kodak any money. They lost $142 million in
Q12005.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:lRuge.1868$WQ3.1120@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
>>The main point of my post was that Market Share should be of little
>
> interest
>
>>to photographers, but of considerable importance to Employees and
>>Shareholders.
>
>
> Actually, ROI and ASP should be more of interest. Selling mass quanitites of
> low end cameras may not make Kodak any money. They lost $142 million in
> Q12005.
>
>
Kodak is still undergoing a switch from a film-based business to a
digital company. It will probably take another year for them to get
over most of the expense related to the change.
Sometimes the 'loss' a company shows is due to inventory writeoffs, and
such that are 'one time' expenses related to business changes. It may
take some time for their conversion plan to work through to profits.

From their annual report:
) Results for the year included $557 million of restructuring
charges; $31 million of purchased R&D; $7 million for a charge related
to asset impairments and other asset write-offs; a $12 million charge
related to an intellectual property settlement; $14 million for a charge
connected with the settlement of a patent infringement claim; $14
million for a charge connected with a prior-year acquisition; $9 million
for a charge to write down certain assets held for sale following the
acquisition of Burrell Companies; $8 million for a donation to a
technology enterprise; $8 million for legal settlements; a $9 million
reversal for an environmental reserve; $32 million of earnings from
discontinued operations related to environmental and tax reserve
reversals; and a $13 million tax benefit related to patent donations.
The after-tax impact of these items was $396 million.

With that explanation, the loss doesn't look that bad for the future.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xuvge.2127$i03.484@fe06.lga...
SNIP
> Mine says 'Made in China, designed in Japan, for Eastman Kodak, US.
> It is rather difficult to find ANYTHING that isn't made in China
> these days... Sigh.
> The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.

The (American) worker (or any company that employs workers) should
compete on other features (like quality, or added value) than lowest
labor cost.

Bart

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:Xuvge.2127$i03.484@fe06.lga...
> SNIP
>
>> Mine says 'Made in China, designed in Japan, for Eastman Kodak, US. It
>> is rather difficult to find ANYTHING that isn't made in China these
>> days... Sigh.
>> The American worker has priced himself out of the labor market.
>
>
> The (American) worker (or any company that employs workers) should
> compete on other features (like quality, or added value) than lowest
> labor cost.
>
> Bart

I don't know that companies really evaluate those factors, they usually
just see the bottom line. That is what comes of letting accountants run
companies.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> Actually, ROI and ASP should be more of interest.
> Selling mass quanitites of low end cameras may not make Kodak any money.
> They lost $142 million in Q12005.

I'd like to know the truth of the matter. Why is Kodak so unprofitable?
Certainly all the bogus investments (ASF dry-process film) didn't help.

But it's hard to believe they aren't making money from digicam sales.
The EasyShare models sell at prices from $150 to $300, which is much more
than the average sales price of film P&S cameras, and I doubt digicams
are any more expensive to produce. Having #1 market share means Kodak
has sufficient volume to easily recoup production costs.

Kodak must be making money on film and paper sales. These are cash cows.
Here is a relevant paragraph from their most recent 10-Q filing:

The [3 or 5%] decrease in net sales was due to declines in price/mix
and declines in volumes, which decreased first quarter sales by
approximately 4.1% and 3.6%, respectively. The decrease in price/mix
was primarily driven by the film capture Strategic Product Group
(SPG), consumer digital capture SPG and the Health Group digital
capture SPG. The decrease in volumes was primarily driven by declines
in the film capture SPG, the wholesale and retail photofinishing
portions of the consumer output SPG, and the Health Group digital output
and film capture and output SPGs. These decreases were partially offset
by increases attributable to the acquisition of NexPress Solutions, which
contributed $78 million or approximately 2.7% to first quarter sales,
and favorable exchange, which increased first quarter sales by ~ 1.9%.

I think price/mix is Kodakspeak for margins. So the problems are that
they were forced (or chose) to sell film, digicams and health care stuff
at a lower price. Also film and photofinishing (but not digicams) did
less business, plus Health Care did poorly. Fortunately the dollar
was weak and NexPress (who?) is generating cash.

I'm surprised Health Care did poorly. "This segment supplies the
healthcare industry with traditional and digital image capture and
output products and services." X-rays etc. Must be competition
because health care spending certainly has not decreased lately.
I'll check to see if my dentist is buying Fuji X-ray film.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, ROI and ASP should be more of interest.
>>Selling mass quanitites of low end cameras may not make Kodak any money.
>>They lost $142 million in Q12005.
>
>
> I'd like to know the truth of the matter. Why is Kodak so unprofitable?
> Certainly all the bogus investments (ASF dry-process film) didn't help.
>
> But it's hard to believe they aren't making money from digicam sales.
> The EasyShare models sell at prices from $150 to $300, which is much more
> than the average sales price of film P&S cameras, and I doubt digicams
> are any more expensive to produce. Having #1 market share means Kodak
> has sufficient volume to easily recoup production costs.
>
> Kodak must be making money on film and paper sales. These are cash cows.
> Here is a relevant paragraph from their most recent 10-Q filing:
>
> The [3 or 5%] decrease in net sales was due to declines in price/mix
> and declines in volumes, which decreased first quarter sales by
> approximately 4.1% and 3.6%, respectively. The decrease in price/mix
> was primarily driven by the film capture Strategic Product Group
> (SPG), consumer digital capture SPG and the Health Group digital
> capture SPG. The decrease in volumes was primarily driven by declines
> in the film capture SPG, the wholesale and retail photofinishing
> portions of the consumer output SPG, and the Health Group digital output
> and film capture and output SPGs. These decreases were partially offset
> by increases attributable to the acquisition of NexPress Solutions, which
> contributed $78 million or approximately 2.7% to first quarter sales,
> and favorable exchange, which increased first quarter sales by ~ 1.9%.
>
> I think price/mix is Kodakspeak for margins. So the problems are that
> they were forced (or chose) to sell film, digicams and health care stuff
> at a lower price. Also film and photofinishing (but not digicams) did
> less business, plus Health Care did poorly. Fortunately the dollar
> was weak and NexPress (who?) is generating cash.
>
> I'm surprised Health Care did poorly. "This segment supplies the
> healthcare industry with traditional and digital image capture and
> output products and services." X-rays etc. Must be competition
> because health care spending certainly has not decreased lately.
> I'll check to see if my dentist is buying Fuji X-ray film.
Had Kodak not taken 'reorganization' charges from the bottom line, they
would made a profit (about 350 million). These are mostly one-time
charges, and can lead to increased profits at the next annual report.
If their sales of digital cameras continue to be strong, then they
should return to profitability in 2005.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net