DeletedAcct1
Member
I ask you something: why Ilford hasn't had all the Kodak screw-ups? Ilford developers are still made in Germany as Kodak's.Actually, all the packaging changes discussed in this thread are called "stay in business."
When Mike's can of Selectol was manufactured in 1969, how many photographic customers had the ability to use a digital camera? A cell phone? None. Silver halide photography was the only option, and Kodak was massively dominant, both over the amateur market and professional practitioners. Volumes were huuuuuge. Cost of packaging in cans was whatever it was. Customers in both segments paid whatever Kodak charged. There were virtually no other choices, at least at the quality and consistency level Kodak provided.
Today, despite talk of a "film revival," the market for silver halide products is minuscule compared to digital imaging, which dominates massively over amateurs and professional practitioners. Kodak, irrespective of prior management blunders that are discussed endlessly, is but one player in this new niche. A monochrome film developer like XTOL is a niche within a niche. Forget about the shipping premium that putting XTOL in cans might impose. Manufacturing cost alone compared to plastic bags would push the price of the product (one that's already drawn complaints for decades) into completely unsellable territory. Competition in the niche is intense. Ask Mirko how price sensitive things are.
In my opinion, just like speculation about Kodak Alaris' licensing agreement with Eastman Kodak, those who know Kodak's marketing strategies aren't talking, and those who are talking don't know. Irrespective of whatever "qualifications" they claim to have.