Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#231

Post by fallous »

kkaske wrote: post #216
guerrilla wrote: post #205

Hey uhh have you guys seen this? "Media reports that Kodak is ceasing operations, going out of business, or filing for bankruptcy are inaccurate and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of a recent technical disclosure the Company made to the SEC in its recently filed second quarter earnings report. These articles are misleading and missing critical context, and we'd like to set the record straight." https://www.ko…

I feel like journalism used to be considered a higher calling. Getting things right was very important. Maybe I’m misremembering, or maybe the internet has just drowned real journalism in a sea of clickbait headlines.

There is a reason that newspapers had old saws about their business such as "if it bleeds, it leads" and "dog bites man isn't newsworthy, man bites dog is."

And there is the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect that was coined by Michael Crichton back in the early 2000s.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#232

Post by actionfromafar »

exasperaited wrote: post #215
actionfromafar wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The year 2000 Canon was also the year 2000 Kodak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D2000

I was talking about compact cameras there, because realistically that is all almost anyone was buying, even in corporate environments. I think they sold in the low thousands of that DSLR (since it was a $15K camera). And the state of these partnership cameras was such that it was obvious they were something of a bridge to nowhere. Anyone could see that once Canon and Nikon began making their own things, Kodak would h…

These are really good points. And Kodak should have bought Sigma, that would have been a power move.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#233

Post by guerrilla »

jachriga wrote: post #228
guerrilla wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was always like that but there were people in journalism fighting hard against it. They lost, apparently somewhat permanently it seems.

"Journalism" has to compete with the likes of TikTok these days in terms of information availability, and TikTok (and it's infinite scrolling ilk) are not subject to the same principles that traditional journalism has been. It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.

I think it started long before that but yes that's why they lost.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#234

Post by exasperaited »

actionfromafar wrote: post #232
exasperaited wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about compact cameras there, because realistically that is all almost anyone was buying, even in corporate environments. I think they sold in the low thousands of that DSLR (since it was a $15K camera). And the state of these partnership cameras was such that it was obvious they were something of a bridge to nowhere. Anyone could see that once Canon and Nikon began making their own things, Kodak would h…

These are really good points. And Kodak should have bought Sigma, that would have been a power move.

I never understood it.

I guess the Sigma film SLRs and DSLRs were in some ways functionally behind (in terms of stuff like handling and autofocus), and it wouldn't necessarily be cheap to catch up. Also early-2000s era Sigma didn't actually own all of Foveon yet, I suppose.

There has always been some suggestion that Sigma didn't entertain offers to become a big camera brand because it would lose the quiet tolerance it had earned from Japanese camera brands that allowed it to make most of its money from third-party lenses without squabbles over proprietary information.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#235

Post by actionfromafar »

exasperaited wrote: post #234
actionfromafar wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are really good points. And Kodak should have bought Sigma, that would have been a power move.

I never understood it. I guess the Sigma film SLRs and DSLRs were in some ways functionally behind (in terms of stuff like handling and autofocus), and it wouldn't necessarily be cheap to catch up. Also early-2000s era Sigma didn't actually own all of Foveon yet, I suppose. There has always been some suggestion that Sigma didn't entertain offers to become a big camera brand because it would lose the quiet tolerance i…

I too, always wondered about that lens protocol issue with Sigma.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#236

Post by kalleboo »

alistairSH wrote: post #219
vile_wretch wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kodak isn't far off from $1/shot retail for some of their film stocks.

Portra 400 is ~$0.50/shot (35mm, 36 exp roll). 160 and 800 are in the same ballpark. What film stock are you seeing that's $1/shot?

Does that include development?

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#237

Post by vile_wretch »

alistairSH wrote: post #219
vile_wretch wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kodak isn't far off from $1/shot retail for some of their film stocks.

Portra 400 is ~$0.50/shot (35mm, 36 exp roll). 160 and 800 are in the same ballpark. What film stock are you seeing that's $1/shot?

I didn't say it was $1/shot yet, though medium format Portra 400 is $16/roll (if buying in a 5-pack) which is at minimum $1/shot. E100G is a bit pricier depending on where you buy it as well. I'm mostly just salty because a decade ago I was paying $6-7 roll for Portra and now (in Canada) it's closer to $35-40.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#238

Post by alistairSH »

kalleboo wrote: post #236
alistairSH wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portra 400 is ~$0.50/shot (35mm, 36 exp roll). 160 and 800 are in the same ballpark. What film stock are you seeing that's $1/shot?

Does that include development?

No, that’s extra. I don’t know if Kodak is selling those chemicals too.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#239

Post by Suppafly »

cloudbonsai wrote: post #138
jspann wrote: post #97

Maybe I'm reading the headlines wrong, but it doesn't seem like a lot of people read the actual press release and earnings report from the August 11th, 2025[1]: 1) The "Going Concern Assessment" that they put out was a regulatory requirement because they didn't have full control of the sale of parts of the pension. They say in the release that they're going to have the sale finalized on December 15th, with details on…

> I'd love to be corrected if I'm misreading this, but the reports of Kodak's death seem greatly exaggerated The basic background here is that Kodak has been pivotting at least for last 40 years. - 1980s: Kodak tried to become a Chemical magnate. This strategy was abandoned in 1990s. - 1990s: Kodak tried to become a Digital Imaging company. While it saw a brief success, Kodak lost the competition. - 2000s: Kodak trie…

It's even worse, other than blockchain, their whole history is having successes and going out of their way to hand that success to their competitors.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#240

Post by forkeep »

yieldcrv wrote: post #142
achierius wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Order of magnitude, sure perhaps, even if not a given. But orders of magnitude? No, that doesn't match with my experience or historical evidence at all.

language exists to convey a shared concept, it was conveyed adequately in singular or plural form

[dead]
Post reply on HN