Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only
Rich
Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
Kodak has reported that its business division that includes digital
cameras suffered a 49% fall in sales (compared to the same period last
year) in the third quarter of 2009. "Continued declines in consumer
spending have had significant impacts in the company's digital camera
and digital picture frame businesses," it said. The sales drop has
primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
business grew. Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.
Charles
"Glen" <glen...@tiscali.com> wrote in message
news:ro5ke5poiahsqrrev...@4ax.com...
> Is it because of the use of plastic?
Nope: 'Steel Gray' finish on the Leica M9:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
Steel Gray rocks!
Charles
John Navas
wrote in
<9ca332f4-bda9-4db7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
Has nothing to do with dSLR cameras, and everything to do with not being
competitive in compact digital cameras.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Ray Fischer
>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
And I bet that you don't even know what those decisions were.
Tell us: did YOU invest a lot of money into digital imaging products
15 years ago? Or are you just playing armchair quarterback and
pretending that you're something other than an ignorant ass?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Larter
> Is it because of the use of plastic?
<grin> I'm sure that RichA thinks so.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
whisky-dave
"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
revenues
doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
> business grew.
Buisness grew ?
>Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.
Richard
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:hceqkg$aoa$1@qmul...
Put down the whisky Dave, it's not helping your typing skills.
tony cooper
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>
>>
>> The sales drop has
>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>revenues
>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>
Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
that income is intellectual property royalty.
If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<ertle5pn8nsqcgk8a...@4ax.com>:
>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...
Pretty easy to find out. ;)
tony cooper
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
><ertle5pn8nsqcgk8a...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...
>
>Pretty easy to find out. ;)
But I don't need to find out to answer the question. The question was
what intellectual property right revenues have to do with declining
Kodak sales in the camera market. The question was not "Which Kodak
intellectual property rights revenues have declined?".
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<dj1me5hat1fl9c02a...@4ax.com>:
I'd say it's pretty relevant to the actual issue at hand,
but of course YMMV. ;)
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
� "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> ������ ��� ������
news:hcd5ml$gsb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Plastic Grey sucks.
>
My crappy P&S camera, www.nytech.de is made of die-cast aluminium and has a
real glass LCD screen window. After almost 3 years of use, it's as good as
new, while other P&S shooters' look scratched. Strangely enough is made in
China, but with a Pentax lens (and a Sony sensor). As usually,
www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortsphotos
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Charles
Rich
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
No, but I didn't control 60% of the digital camera market only to blow it,
like Kodak did. I didn't put out the best original DSLR only to blow it,
like Kodak did. I didn't jump into the CMOS market five years too late and
blow it, like Kodak did...etc.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4aea5f0a$0$1609
>$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>>>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
>>
>> And I bet that you don't even know what those decisions were.
>>
>> Tell us: did YOU invest a lot of money into digital imaging products
>> 15 years ago? Or are you just playing armchair quarterback and
>> pretending that you're something other than an ignorant ass?
>
>No, but I didn't control 60% of the digital camera market only to blow it,
And when did Kodak ever control 60% of the digital camera market?
> I didn't put out the best original DSLR only to blow it,
Neither did Kodak.
>like Kodak did.
If you think that Kodak's was the best dSLR then you really are either
an idiot or a delusional cultist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ertle5pn8nsqcgk8a...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sales drop has
>>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>>
>>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>>revenues
>>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>>
> Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
> inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
> and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
> that income is intellectual property royalty.
Well I know what Intellectual property is, we have an Intellectual property
laws department.
But what is it they have lost out on ,the sale of Polaroid film IP, as I
didn;t think they
licensed it to anyone else. Other than that I can;t think of anything Kodak
invented.
>
> If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
> would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
> incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
>
> I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
> patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
> makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.
That's what I was wondering what did Kodak invent that's still in use today
that's significant in the market.
tony cooper
You can Google "Kodak's patents" and find several hits for things like
the Sun/Java/Kodak patent cases and Kodak's patents on x-ray film.
And others.
Also, anyone who uses the Kodak trademarks on photo paper pays Kodak
for the use of the name. HP Photo Paper, for example, is trademarked
by Kodak.
>>
>> If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
>> would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
>> incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
>>
>> I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
>> patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
>> makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.
>
>That's what I was wondering what did Kodak invent that's still in use today
>that's significant in the market.
>
--
Matt Wayne
tony_co...@earthlink.net (tony cooper)
Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
inventions, designs, images, etc.
==================================
Intellectual property is an outdated concept
based on the ability to enforce that edict.
Information can't be owned in the true sense, just the power to
exclusively control it.
Property, in all forms, is a beastly concept,
appealing to a lower mind that wants what
it see/conceives.
It's a shame it made it into the 21st century.
(no property = no war)
John Turco
Back to your old, unethical tricks, eh? You failed to provide any
attribution for the above article, which you'd copied and pasted
(from "Digital Photography Review").
Plus, you should've included a link to the story, and also limited
yourself to quoting selected excerpts from it.
Alas, what else could be expected of an incorrigible troll, such
as yourself?
Anyhow, here's the URL in question:
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102902kodakthirdquarter.asp>
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
John Turco
>
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<edited for brevity>
> > I didn't put out the best original DSLR only to blow it,
>
> Neither did Kodak.
>
> >like Kodak did.
>
> If you think that Kodak's was the best dSLR then you really are either
> an idiot or a delusional cultist.
Rich certainly is an idiot, but, he's right about something: Kodak's
DCS 100 >was< the "best original DSLR" -- simply because it happened
to be the first and only one, back in 1991!
John Turco
So, if nobody owns any property, people won't fight over it? That's
a rather naive notion, I fear.
Филимон Лаковид
being
competitive in compact digital cameras.
--
Paul Furman
> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
>
> Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
> Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
My first digital camera in 2000 was a Kodak DC50
http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Kodak-DC50-Kodak-V550/Kodak-DC50-Kodak-V550-review.htm
I returned it after testing for a couple days.
It stunk.
I got on Oly C3030 instead.