33 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 49.6 ms ] thread
They've been killing it with new products lately. Specifically the new film stock without Remjet and Lucky C200.
Good for Kodak for responding quickly AND being transparent about the numbers involved.

FWIW, discussions about Kodak's decline have been going on for years. This thread is from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597

It's legally required to report a going concern when you are publicly traded. This is funny because it's a bit of the reverse, but I bet their accountants deemed publishing this as a requirement.
Maybe someone who knows could explain why the “going concern” warning is there and how it might be misleading? How would Matt Levine explain this?
Reports of its death were wildly exaggerated?
Can FASB please get rid of the term "going concern" and replace it with something more understandable? It has caused a lot of confusion for many companies and there's no need for it whatsoever. They can completely replace the term with something else like "Continuing Operations". It's really fucking easy, I don't know why they insist on that backwards terminology except maybe they enjoy the confusion it creates.
Maybe someone had a huge Short position
An interesting thought experiment for me is I wonder when we read a statement like this from someone like Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, etc. in the future? The world changes around companies, and no empire lasts forever. Ask IBM. Ask the Dutch East India Company. Kodak didn’t adapt to a filmless world, what are FAANG companies not adapting to now?
I worked for a company with going concern adverse disclosure like Kodak has when I was in college. They no longer exist.

They don’t predict the future, but they are a very serious indicator that should not be ignored

I wonder what the actual strategies are that Kodak can use to turn around their business? I think currently their revenue streams are:

* Commercial printing and imaging. They are one of the main suppliers for equipment and consumables for large-scale offset printing used in books, magazines, and stuff.

* Advanced materials and chemicals. They even have an FDA-registered pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

* Film and industrial film production.

* Brand licensing and partnerships.

I think that while film has a bit of a comeback due to its nostalgia factor, it's always going to be relegated to a handful of niche applications. Meanwhile, I don't see Kodak getting back into consumer photography, much as I love photography, since it's a low margin and increasingly niche business. Also, they sold off their medical imaging division in 2007.

I miss those Kodak CCDs.

The film business is increasingly niche.

I can’t get over how much better performing 35mm full frame mirrorless cameras are than the old film cameras. To get a shot like this

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114401857009398302

with film I would have needed a medium format camera and tripod, today it is an easy handheld shot you can do spontaneously with a travel lens that goes from 28-200mm. I can go to a soccer or basketball game and shoot bursts, come back with 3000 photos and catch things like two guys tries to head the ball at the same time

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/113240678816336189

… and I can afford to do it!

So the pension fund thing. My accrued pension value took a significant haircut when my own former company went out of business. In this case, they can take $0.5B out and still "meet all their obligations" without a haircut? So their pension fund was significantly overfunded and all their retirees still get all that was promised to them?
They make good lenses; the lenses in my glasses are theirs.
Oof. The initial media report might actually have caused material (financial) damage to Kodak.

If someone was shopping around for a Kodak product, saw that original article, they likely decided against Kodak. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable buying a product from a company close to bankruptcy - because if anything goes wrong, no warranty, replacement parts, etc..

Would love to see Kodak do a hail mary on a camera that looks as thin/clean as an iPhone, gives you same or better camera quality, BUT has the absolute best UX around getting your photos transferred, printed, archived (as I upload stuff from the camera, send me permanent backup dvds for an added fee) etc.

Could also offer little software upgrades in the form of filter packs, plugins/add-ons, etc. I can use it to take normal photos, do 4k-8k video, stream direct from the camera, etc. Make it the most versatile camera known to man, all at an affordable price of like ~$299.

Call it the Kodak Moment to piggyback on the existing tagline and you've at the very least got a successful flash in the pan hipster product.

When I learnt that Kodak deleted that Xinjiang photo, I stopped buying their products. Fine to not post initially, but publishing then deleting and apologizing shows weak corporate backbone.

Previously discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28024539

Anyone reading at Kodak, please consider making a camera that has:

1. 35mm-equivalent basic plastic lens, 6 megapixel sensor with big pixels, autofocus, center-weighted metering.

2. No screen to see photos. Only a tiny LCD for basic settings like remaining pictures and remaining battery power.

3. Pictures saved to replaceable built-in SD card, downloadable to computers via USB-C to USB-C connector.

4. Long battery life (one whole day of shooting). Powered by rechargeable AA batteries.

5. Splash proof.

6. Photo sensor that adds grain to blown highlights and lost shadows.

7. Less than $100.

8. Bonus: Open source firmware.

Basically a competitor to the Camp Snap, but better.

Thank you!