Paul Stenquist wrote: >It wouldn't have helped. To survive given their business model, Kodak had to >figure out a way to retain the business of the millions -- perhaps billions -- of people all over the globe who relied on them for snapshots of the >kids. They should have been first and least inexpensive in point and shoot >tech, and then maybe even phones. Probably an impossible task. The advanced >amateur and pro side of the biz was peanuts. Movie film was profitable at one >time, but even that went away.
Oddly enough, movie stock is about the only film that's profitable for Kodak now. I got this straight from the horse's mouth: In the heyday of film Kodak just about gave away movie film; they made the big money from consumer film. Now the situation is exactly the reverse: they lose money on consumer film and make what little profit they get from movie stock. Right now the demand for movie film is the only thing that's keeping the production lines running. This means that we can expect color negative film to go away within 5 years or so as the movie industry switches over to digital projection. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
