back to article Stay away from the light, Kodak! Look, here's $406m to keep you alive

Eastman Kodak's creditors have backed its plan to sell 34 million shares worth $406m as it prepares to exit bankruptcy protection. Key creditors of the fallen tech giant have agreed to backstop the rights offering, which means they will pick up any stock that Kodak doesn't manage to flog to investors. The firm said that the …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jai

    vote of confidence in both ... reorganisation and in ... our restructuring

    So they've reorganised, restructured, and with this they'll presumably pay off a lot of debt.

    But have they announced what their new products are going to be?

    Nothing's changed, because people still aren't buying old fashioned film, or getting holiday snaps printed developed. They're far from being a presence in the digital market.

    I don't see why people will want to buy the stock when they offer it.

    Yes, they'll no longer be bankrupt. But how are they going to make enough money in order to stay that way?

    1. Flywheel Silver badge

      Re: vote of confidence in both ... reorganisation and in ... our restructuring

      "people still aren't buying old fashioned film"

      Oh yes they are, and Fuji and Ilford are still churning it out. Kodak have lost a *lot* of friends by discontinuing some their finest films

      1. A More Ominous Cow Herd

        Re: vote of confidence in both ... reorganisation and in ... our restructuring

        I think I'll sit this one out and see how things develop...

      2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

        Re: vote of confidence in both ... reorganisation and in ... our restructuring

        Well, some people are. Film sales have been declining at more than 25%pa for more than the last 10 years. They're at near 1% of what they were at their peak.

  2. Cubical Drone

    "Kodak is hoping to leave Chapter 11 the third quarter of this year."

    And then do what. They got caught flat footed by changes in technology and paid the price. I really can't image what they plan to do to become relevant again.

    But, alas, I am but a cubical drone so maybe they have someone with some brilliant plan, but I don't think I would be in buy mode for this stock right now.

    1. DavCrav Silver badge

      "But, alas, I am but a cubical drone"

      Make sure you don't bash your corners in then...

  3. monkeyfish

    Actually, their R&D were pretty ahead of their time in digital, pity the management weren't.

    100% actuate wiki quote: Although Kodak developed a digital camera in 1975, the first of its kind, the product was dropped for fear it would threaten Kodak's photographic film business

    1. bigtimehustler

      The people that made that decision are so so very stupid. Did they really think no one else would develop a digital camera? That only they were capable? If your business model is going to be threatened, better it be by yourself than a competitor!

      1. peter 45

        Yes they are that stupid

        Several years ago I developed a piece of electronic equipment which sold very well as it had no immediate competitors. Over time I put forward plans to improve and upgrade it, reduce manufacturing costs, bring it into line with latest Military standards, and produce a range of units on the same basic design. It would have cost less than 1% of the profits made from that unit, but management said no as it was selling well.

        Fast forward two years. There are now several competing units on offer which cost less and are built to the latest Military standards. Our sales have fallen to virtually zero. Management response was to send out several memos requesting ideas as to why this unit is no longer selling and what can be done to regain the lost market.

        I resigned

        1. Jerome Fryer

          Ah, so it was YOUR fault!

          I used to work for a company that was burdened with similar management genius.

          All problems arising from poor management were invariably the fault of the last engineer that had resigned. The one possible exception was the new hire who resigned after three hours (which I am fairly sure was our staff turnover record, and quite possibly the smartest person ever hired).

    2. Quxy

      Sharper focus

      Yep. Read the article in The Economist that digs into the reasons for Kodak's woes and Fujifilm's revitalisation.

  4. Scott Pedigo

    I'm reminded of the South Park episode where one of the kid's fathers buys a Blockbuster video store for $10,000 using the family's savings:

  5. localgeek

    Film Isn't Dead

    I can't speak to the future of Kodak. It's clear they've made some poor decisions, and their future remains a giant question mark. But as the assertion that "people still aren't buying old fashioned film... well, that just ain't so. I shoot both digital and film, and I've got a freezer full of film. I typically shoot a roll or two a week. Fuji, Ilford and some lesser known names are still pumping out film in a variety of formats. A company in Europe just recently released a brand new b&w emulsion.

    Just because it's a niche doesn't mean the craft of analog photography is dead. Take a look at Flickr and you'll notice dozen of groups specifically dedicated to shooting all manner of film and film cameras. Several of these groups are extremely active. There's also an active web forum called APUG (Analog Photographers User Group), which generates at least 1500+ posts over a typical weekend. Then you have Lomography selling their (admittedly plasticy) cameras online and in various brick and mortar locations around the world. On top of that, in the last couple of years 110 film has gone back into production after being abandoned by the major film companies. And the Impossible Project has similarly taken up the instant film market for Polaroid cameras.

    There's a lot going on in film today!

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Film Isn't Dead

      But it is niche!

      How big are the markets for floppy disks and new pressings of vinyl?

      The large markets for film are gone.

      Consumers do not want it, and professional photographers and cinematographers barely use it anymore.

      Only enthusiasts and artists (arguably a subset of the former) want it now.

      That kind of market simply cannot support a large enterprise. It can only support a small number of small businesses.

      1. Richard Gadsden

        Re: Film Isn't Dead

        Isn't that what Kodak's Ch11 is all about though, restructuring themselves as a small, niche, business?

        1. ollieclark

          Re: Film Isn't Dead

          A small, niche, half a billion dollar business? The means they expect to make somewhere around $50 million in PROFIT a year. From selling a niche product to enthusiasts? Give me a break!

    2. Ed 13

      Re: Film Isn't Dead

      Also, don't forget cinemas too.

      Whilst there is more and more digital projection, there are still a very large number of theatres out there that only have equipment to project standard 35mm print.

      At 90ft per minute a two hour feature print in 35mm is about 2 miles long. That's a lot of stock for all those prints.

  6. Joe Harrison Silver badge

    it's dead Jim

    Some of my cubicle-mates are still using film, as a sort of whimsy as far as I can tell. Reminds me of when I was a kid I knew people who were sticking with 78s none of this vinyl stereo crap thank you.

    1. localgeek

      Re: it's dead Jim

      For some people, using film is whimsy. But there's some serious photography being done by talented people on medium and large format, in particular. Just search Flickr or Google+ for "medium format" and take a look at some of the work you find there. I don't see how anyone could look at the serious photography still shot on film in 2013, and pronounce it dead. A lot of younger people are rediscovering film and some will shoot with nothing else!

      Sure there are the hipsters who buy a plastic Holga, shoot a roll and then move on to something more interesting and trendy. (There's nothing wrong with shooting Holgas, mind you - I still use mine.) On the other hand, the cost of quality, vintage camera gear keeps climbing. There's clearly a demand for it. I've been back to film for around 3-4 years now, and have no intention of quitting. As long as there's a sufficient market, film will be the preferred medium of a sizable niche market.

  7. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Film is still viable. Call me when digital cameras reach 200 to 300 Megapixels. With higher dynamic range as well. Yeah, I can match film with multiple exposure digital shots. As long as the subject holds still long enough.

    Kodak and Polaroid just didn't have a management strategy in place to handle the contracting amateur market. Fuji and Ilford are doing OK. In fact Fuji makes a line of instant film and cameras.

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Blimey, what combination of format, emulsion, film speed and lens are you using to get the equivalent of 300 megapixels?

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge

      You what?

      Unless you're shooting large format, you're talking utter rubbish!

      Film has a grain size, you can see the actual 'pixels' with a hand lens. They aren't square, but they are there.

      Even medium-format is only about 50MPixels.

      35mm is 4 to 16MPixels depending on the emulsion (faster = lower resolution)

      1. localgeek

        Re: You what?

        The potential resolution really depends on the capabilities of the scanning device. A drum scanner can eke out tremendous amount of data from a 35mm or medium format negative, even though typical consumer scanners don't come close. And while not exactly square, tabular grain films like T-Max are rectangular.

  8. Daedalus Silver badge

    It's all about the numbers

    Speaking as someone close to ground zero, so to speak, I can say that the question was never about what Kodak could do instead of making and selling film. Kodak can and has done many things, some very well (though they tended to sell those bits off). The problem has been replacing tens of billions of dollars of film business (at 50% gross profit margin) with something else. All the digital waffle has tended to ignore the fact that the company would be going up against established rivals like HP and Canon that were several times larger even when Kodak was doing nearly $20 bn a year. Now that it is a comparative minnow you have to wonder why they would bother competing at all in the digital market. Their very good technology in the area of sensors etc. can't support even a medium sized company. They may or may not still have the horrendous horde of bungling middle managers who did so much for them in the past.

  9. OhIthinkNot

    Kodak is not film anymore

    All of these comments about film miss the point. Kodak doesn't do much film anymore, certainly not consumer film. They have sold most of those divisions (or given them away to creditors).

    All that's left of Kodak is the commercial print business (digital printers, prepress platesetters, printing plates, and the associated workflow).

    This is not your grandfather's or your father's Kodak. This is not your Kodak of 10 years ago.

    We'll see if they can manage this business well, or it will suffer the same fate as their film business.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Kodachrome, I mean that's pretty much it, fantastic film, not to mention the whole legacy of Kodak film. That shouldn't be lost. I do hope they pull through.

    1. pierce

      Re: Kodachrome

      kodachrome was killed off a couple years ago, I thought? the processing was very expensive and toxic

    2. swschrad

      Re: Kodachrome

      Kodachrome is very, very dead. Kodak got out of processing it a decade ago, leaving one processor in Kansas who bought their plant. they drained the tanks two years ago and scrapped the machine.

  11. macaroo

    Kodak's Future

    After working at Kodak in Rochester NY for 25 years in IT, I can say that I had a insight into most of the departments of this once great company. Does anybody remember that they were the only one to grind a perfect mirror for the Hubble telescope? The only reason their's wasn't on the finished product was they insisted that a test jig be built to test the accuracy of the mirror while it was being ground. This put the cost of the mirror above their competitors. Also Kodak at one time had the leading technical and scientific employees in the black magic science of coating. This was all lost when film and paper production was shut down. It was a shame that this knowledge could not be applied to other forms of coatings; surface mount electronics, photo-voltaic cells, etc. I could go on for hours. The sad part of the situation was everybody heard the foot steps except upper management. They were too afraid of killing the cash cow. I rest my case.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Hubble telescope

      You've got some bad data in there somewhere. The mirrors for the Hubble were tested with jigs before launch. Problem was, they built the test jig wrong.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019