Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
That is my understanding also. But I'm always surprised that nobody on this forum seems to have the connections to get this news at the same time or earlier to either confirm or deny. The notion of contractual obligation to not share pricing information has always been despicable, and in some industries (funeral industry, in particular) it has been legally banned.With the exception of the UK, where Harman is its own distributor, price increase notifications usually come from distributors and are directed to retailers, not end users. The retailers than make their own, individual decisions about changes in the price that gets charged to us consumers.
It doesn’t surprise me that the first public knowledge of this sort of thing comes from a third party. It wouldn’t surprise me if we (consumers) never hear of this set of increases directly from Harman or even from their various distributors around the world, such as Amplis in Canada.
Manufacturers’ prices to their distributors are almost never released to the public, and distributors may actually be prohibited contractually from sharing their details.
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
On the contrary; they've happened regularly. Here's a small sampling of recent threads:But... but... but... Harman rarely comes up with price increases.
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
Any legislative restriction on keeping pricing information confidential is only going to apply to the direct relationship between sellers and buyers, except in the case where a seller is professing to be merely passing on an incurred expense to their customers.That is my understanding also. But I'm always surprised that nobody on this forum seems to have the connections to get this news at the same time or earlier to either confirm or deny. The notion of contractual obligation to not share pricing information has always been despicable, and in some industries (funeral industry, in particular) it has been legally banned.
A box of 100 8x10 fiber glossy is
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
Last time I checked Harman where the good guys and Kodak the bad guys right?But... but... but... Harman rarely comes up with price increases.
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
Good thing I got supply of my Ilford stapple for the rest of the year (a full 100ft roll of HP5 and a partial one of Delta 400). Most likely will last me till next year.
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
That is my understanding also. But I'm always surprised that nobody on this forum seems to have the connections to get this news at the same time or earlier to either confirm or deny. The notion of contractual obligation to not share pricing information has always been despicable, and in some industries (funeral industry, in particular) it has been legally banned.
True, applies to retail pricing between seller and buyer. I should have been more specific and referenced "retail prices" in my last sentence. Might have avoided confusion. I was referring to US requirements to publish and provide a General Price List (GPL) for funeral goods and services or divulge Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) on the sticker attached to the car being sold. To be honest... it really doesn't matter too much what the retailer pays to get the goods they are selling us.Any legislative restriction on keeping pricing information confidential is only going to apply to the direct relationship between sellers and buyers, except in the case where a seller is professing to be merely passing on an incurred expense to their customers.
Retailers have never been required to reveal their costs to end users. In a competitive market manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors are only required to disclose their prices to their customers (the retailers) and they are entitled to require those customers to keep that information confidential. Those retailers are entitled to shop around and get the best price they can from alternate sources - e.g. buy Foma instead of Ilford film, if they so choose.
But... but... but... Harman rarely comes up with price increases.
Maco in the past, to own saying, did so concerning conversion. But they did not communicate this on the label as "basic" and "premium" or so.Probably unrelated to the post, but this has been on my head for a while. When I was working for a local hardware store chain, I was involved in the process of adquiring goods on China for our house brand. Chinese company will provide tools and goods with different quality level, depending on how much you wanted to expend.
Is there something similar on the film industry for these rebrands? Example, for Foma, can you ask for a "Premium" level film for your rebranded film? Probably what I'm wondering is that if these rebrands would have a different kind of quality level between the rebrands and the main brand. Say Fomapan film has a better quality control than Arista Edu or Kosmofoto rebrands (or the other way around) that may worth getting the rebrand over the main brand (or, again, the other way around). Or probably they are all the same?
Foma has had a stable supply on both sides of the pond as far as I remember.
A box of 100 8x10 fiber glossy is...
Ignoring complaints about the "source" of this information (such reports inevitably turn out to be correct), I'm just watching with a smile how Kodak-haters who always hold up HARMAN as the affordable alternative are suddenly silent.
Hello, anybody awake? How can Kodak be "twice as expensive" as 100 sheets of Ilford fiber-base paper? Kodak hasn't sold black and white paper since 2005.Helpo, anybody home? kodak is already TWICE as expensive, as we speak.
Hello, anybody awake? How can Kodak be "twice as expensive" as 100 sheets of Ilford fiber-base paper? Kodak hasn't sold black and white paper since 2005.
Kodak hate continues.
Hello, anybody awake? How can Kodak be "twice as expensive" as 100 sheets of Ilford fiber-base paper? Kodak hasn't sold black and white paper since 2005.
Kodak hate continues.
I'm just glad it's still available.
A perfect example of Kodak hate. Really.Oh yeah, now I remember: Kodak hated its users so much they cancelled all the products in favor of office printers (yes, true pathetic story).
We can never hate kodak as much as Kodak hated us. Really.
Leading us on for another closed thread or the shitbox. Keep up the good work, guys.
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?