When I sold my Minolta 9xi for $10 I would chip in that $10. They could do the impossible project for polaroid I think we can do it too right?
If we all chip in we can buy it.
I'll go first. The cost of a Leica.
$10.
Is that the same Sky News that is defending itself against a "damages" claim from some company who installed vote counting machinery at the last POTUS election?
Thanks
pentaxuser
If we finally see real justice that particular fake "news" outlet will be no longer......
Yes, agreed.Thanks So there may be evidence that if Sky News was the source of the story then it may not be the most reliable source, especially if there are no other sources to help corroborate the story. Isn't the problem with any source that exists on the basis that its stories are its income is that its has to produce eye-catching stories to survive which I suppose raises the question of how reliable this Petapixel source is as well
pentaxuser
... it is true that Kodak Alaris' owner - which remains the Pension Fund, which is being operated by the UK Pension authorities ...
Thanks for this reminder. One may reasonably infer that the current owners are not particularly interested in or committed to running, growing or perhaps, even sustaining the business long term. Which explains much with regard to product pricing, among other things.
K-A can hardly sell film for less than E-K sells it to them.
But yeah....it's all Alaris deliberately pissing us photographers off and deliberately sabotaging their own business with high prices.
You do realise that the pension fund has to keep going? Just because they've stopped enrolling new people into the pension scheme doesn't mean their obligations to each and every existing member stop any time soon.
But yeah....it's all Alaris deliberately pissing us photographers off and deliberately sabotaging their own business with high prices.
...
The cost of a Leica.
$10.
Honestly I don't think that anything is new in this news. UK is trying to fund pensions. Smoke no fire.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say...or purposely extrapolated into the absurd....not sure which.
They are investors. When a company is taken over by investors, the investors don't typically have any interest or expertise in actually running or growing the company long term. Their only real goal is to sell their investment at a profit. This usually results in such actions as, breaking the company up and selling off the pieces, aggressive supplier management, delaying payment to suppliers for absolutely as long as possible and a host of other actions to make the company look better financially in the short term without regard for the long term. These actions invariably have significant implications on the quality, price and availability of product.
So, no. They're not intentionally trying to piss off the customer base but they don't really care about the customer base either (nor any aspect of the business really) in the long term. The investors only care about short term because they'd much rather divest themselves of the investment at a suitable profit in the short term so that they can free up their capital and move on to another investment opportunity. Don't you think they'd rather manage a nice balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds?
A pension funds obligations are long term obligations - they need to generate profit from their existing asset, and preserve the capital, in order to satisfy those obligations.
If selling the business for cash and then re-investing that cash is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should sell.
If retaining, running and building a business is projected to yield longer term stability and income, then the Pension Fund should retain the business..
They have entertaining offers for a long time - they may actually have to do that, in order to satisfy their public facing obligations. That doesn't necessarily mean that any of the offers has come close to being more valuable than retaining the business.
Yes, Thank you. You've clearly and concisely stated what I was trying to say. It's all about their fiducial responsibility to the pension fund and their proclivity for either running a business or managing an investment portfolio.
One of their biggest assets is their continuing connection with the remaining goodwill associated with the brand name of Kodak. That asset might be less valuable in the hands of another entity, so the selling price may be less than it otherwise would be.
Unfortunately, it would be extremely unlikely that Eastman Kodak could raise the money needed to buy it back - they are too small and lack capital.
No doubt, they (the people running K-A) are in a difficult position.
I cannot help but wonder if the proceeeds from the sale to Sino-Promise were used to meet current obligations (an act of desperation) or if they were invested in some instrument that generates ongoing passive income.
Who makes the kiosks and dry labs for KA? Any idea how many employees (actual KA)?? What a mess.
Even if still film would come back to EK, the Alaris distribution people would (at least some) would need to stay on.
I was around when some of the big US and EU companies spun off their commodity plastics, paints, chemical etc businesses, it was a mess at times, but there were usually (mostly) the same people, just different ownership
$10...strictly for personal use.
That I understand. Which really makes no difference to KA being the name behind still film. And not many would notice a difference if simply checking out Alaris’ website for film information. For general information available at the Alaris takeover Kodak film would have gone dead without it.
We could speculate why Pension Plan took the distribution responsibility, but it was not just the noble idea of making photographers happy and well fed.
Yes, Thank you. You've clearly and concisely stated what I was trying to say. It's all about their fiduciary responsibility to the pension fund and their proclivity for either running a business or managing an investment portfolio.
..... They could wake up one day with no customers and no company worth anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?