Kodak Warns It May Go Out of Business (usatoday.com) 109
After over 130 years in business, Kodak has warned it may not survive. From a report: The Rochester, New York-based Eastman Kodak Co. offered a bleak picture of its financials in earnings reports and filings, tracking a second quarter loss and sending shares tumbling in early trading Tuesday, Aug. 12. The iconic brand said in Monday, Aug. 11 government filings that there is "substantial doubt" about the company's ability to continue, as it faces more than $470 million in debt and slashes its pension plan in an attempt to remain afloat.
"Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with their current terms," the company said in its filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. [...] In its most recent earnings report, Kodak said its consolidated revenues were $263 million at the end of the quarter on June 30, a decrease of $4 million since the same period last year. Gross profit decreased 12% compared to last year's second quarter end, Kodak disclosed, and its cash balance sits at $155 million, marking a loss of just under 23% since the end of December.
Jim Continenza, Kodak's Executive Chairman and CEO, said tariffs have not had a "material impact" on its businesses, noting the domestic production of many of its products such as printing plates, film, inkjet presses and inks and pharmaceutical ingredients. Kodak's chief financial officer David Bullwinkle said in the company's Aug. 11 statement it plans to focus on its advanced chemicals and materials sector moving forward, and said the cut to its retirement program is going toward paying down its debt. He said the company expects to "have a clear understanding" by Friday, Aug. 15 of how it will meet its debt obligations. "For the second half of the year, we will continue to focus on reducing costs today and converting our investments into long-term growth," Bullwinkle said.
"Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with their current terms," the company said in its filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. [...] In its most recent earnings report, Kodak said its consolidated revenues were $263 million at the end of the quarter on June 30, a decrease of $4 million since the same period last year. Gross profit decreased 12% compared to last year's second quarter end, Kodak disclosed, and its cash balance sits at $155 million, marking a loss of just under 23% since the end of December.
Jim Continenza, Kodak's Executive Chairman and CEO, said tariffs have not had a "material impact" on its businesses, noting the domestic production of many of its products such as printing plates, film, inkjet presses and inks and pharmaceutical ingredients. Kodak's chief financial officer David Bullwinkle said in the company's Aug. 11 statement it plans to focus on its advanced chemicals and materials sector moving forward, and said the cut to its retirement program is going toward paying down its debt. He said the company expects to "have a clear understanding" by Friday, Aug. 15 of how it will meet its debt obligations. "For the second half of the year, we will continue to focus on reducing costs today and converting our investments into long-term growth," Bullwinkle said.
Dispicable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dispicable (Score:5, Insightful)
My first guess would be that private equity sunk their greedy little hooks into it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And at that exact moment our magnanimous overlords have deigned to grant us unworthy peasants the right to invest our 401ks and our life savings into private equity funds. Praise be to Wall Street!
Re: (Score:3)
What I like best about private equity is that the all you can eat buffet is basically over
Patron: But the sign says "All you can eat"!,
Owner: That's right, pal. That is all you can eat.
Re: Dispicable (Score:2)
What does this have to do with private equity? Kodak is a publicly traded company. Private equity means only available to qualified (by law and by charter) investors meaning you have to meet certain legal requirements before the company is allowed to sell to you, and you have to meet the company's requirements before they will agree to sell to you.
None of this applies to Kodak. The only reason all if this is even being made public is because Kodak is required to do so for their 10-Q. If it was private equit
Learn to Google competently (Score:1)
So yeah private equity is involved and it didn't take very God damn long to figure it out.
I don't think you're actually this stupid. I think you are choosing ignorance to make a point. You can get away with that for a very long time until you can't. Then the private equity companies take your hou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Learn to Google competently (Score:2)
/facepalm
Well we already know that when you talk about googling shit, you don't actually do so, and that's apparent here as well. Kodak went chapter 11 in 2011, and then sold off several business units to the pension fund of its UK employees in order to pay down its debts. After that point, they had nothing more to do with Kodak Eastman other than retaining the name Kodak.
Later on, that pension fund sold those to an investment holdings firm. Still nothing to do with Kodak Eastman, which is what this is talk
Re:Dispicable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, Kodak already went bankrupt. It emerged from bankruptcy a shell of its former self, and was profitable for a few years but seems doomed again.
The march of technology killed this company, not private equity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dispicable (Score:4, Insightful)
Gross profit means before paying your bills, so it's meaningless when it comes to having cash to stave off creditors.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: Gross profit includes some bills, specifically COGS.
It does not include payroll, rent, utilities, the cost of unsold inventory, etc.
COGS = Cost Of Goods Sold [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Gross profit means before paying your bills, so it's meaningless when it comes to having cash to stave off creditors.
I often have problems reconciling my net income with my gross habits.
Re:Dispicable (Score:5, Informative)
Profits indicate money coming in. It does not take into account financing future debts. The point here is that profits are down to the point (and may not even have been sufficient previously) to finance any upcoming debt obligations. That is how most businesses go under, not by making a loss on any given day, but by failing to pay creditors when due.
Today I make a profit of $500 instead of $1000. Hurrah, still profit. That $500 goes into my bank where I have $20500 cash on hand now. If tomorrow I owe a $30000 repayment, then my business is bankrupt and I go under, even if I still made a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an operating profit (you make money, but not enough to pay your debts), you can file Chapter 11, and the judge will likely let you stay in business, since you're still making some money to pay off your creditors. Everyone is better off if the business continues.
But TFA doesn't say that Kodak has an operating profit. It says a gross profit, which is an entirely different thing and means almost nothing.
Re: Dispicable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's meaningless. Only 10% of companies come out of chapter 11 without winding up with a chapter 7 proceeding afterwards. Chapter 11 is only suitable if your profitability is significant enough that you have a path to future financial health. Kodak knows this better than anyone having gone through this process back in 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
If tomorrow I owe a $30000 repayment, then my business is bankrupt and I go under, even if I still made a profit.
There is no justification for not calling a loan payment an expense. Even if you use the narrow accounting definition of "a cost that a company incurs to generate revenue" they still ostensibly took that loan for the purpose of supporting their revenue generation schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
A loan payment is an expense. A loan payment due tomorrow is not. You don't report tomorrow's expenses today. That's what this is about. You can make profit while having future obligations that are larger than profits. Just ask anyone who lost their house because they weren't able to make mortgage repayments.
Profits != income - expense. If you want to define total capital value - debt obligations you need to look somewhere else on the balance sheet, and when you do Kodak's future looks incredibly miserable
Re: (Score:1)
Gross profits, not net You can have profits of 99 trillion dollars a year and still be losing money if you're spending 100 trillion dollars a year.
Re: Dispicable (Score:5, Insightful)
"Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with their current terms"
Its right there in TFS
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit more complicated than that. Here's a bigger quote (from the filing):
U.S. GAAP requires an evaluation of whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements are issued. Initially, this evaluation does not consider the potential mitigating effect of management’s plans that have not been fully implemented. When substantial doubt exists, management evaluates the mitigating effect of its plans if it is probable that (1) the plans will be effectively implemented within one year after the date the financial statements are issued, and (2) when implemented, the plans will mitigate the relevant conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements are issued.
As of the date of issuance of these financial statements, Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with their current terms. These conditions raise substantial doubt about Kodak’s ability to continue as a going concern.
Kodak’s plans to adequately fund its existing preferred stock and debt obligations when they come due are dependent on obtaining sufficient proceeds from the expected reversion of cash to the Company upon settlement of obligations under the KRIP to reduce the amount of the Term Loans and to (i) convert, redeem, extend or refinance the existing Series B Preferred Stock past the current mandatory redemption date of May 28, 2026, (ii) amend, extend or refinance the remaining outstanding Term Loans past the current maturity date of May 22, 2026, and (iii) replace collateral currently supporting the letters of credit issued under the L/C Facility Agreement. These plans are not solely within Kodak’s control and therefore are not deemed “probable” under U.S. GAAP.
In other words, there's no problem, but accounting rules require that they use these words. However, they do have a plan.
For context, S&P Global Market Intelligence rates their financial health at 57/100, on a scale where 50 means average. Their debt load isn't very high, and almost all of it is residual from covid-era losses.
It's just another horseshit story, probably written by somebody shorting the stock.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just another horseshit story, probably written by somebody shorting the stock.
It would be quite significant if it was from someone shorting the stock given that the warning was given by Kodak themselves in their official investor release.
In other words, there's no problem
Kodak themselves have raised concern and the text you quoted even said that their path to survive is not entirely with their control. You're doing some grade-A gaslighting yourself there.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't understand the words you're replying to.
That's a tip, not an invitation to argue.
Source: Am active investor, did read filing
Re: (Score:2)
Kodak is not making a (net) profit. They are losing money. A "gross" profit is the top line number, but expenses and obligations must be subtracted to determine the net profit (or in their case, net loss).
Re: (Score:3)
Since the employees worked there in consideration of the eventual pension, slashing it should be considered outright financial fraud. In cases of bankruptcy, the pension funding should be first in line for whatever remains.
Re: (Score:3)
Unpaid payroll usually comes first. Whether pensions come before bond payments depends on the terms. If bonds are subordinated, they will have to pay higher interest, which means the company might have gone out of business years earlier, making pensioners even worse off.
Situations like this are why company-backed defined-benefit pension plans should be illegal. Way too often, they go up in smoke or require taxpayer bailouts.
Individually controlled accounts, like 401(k) plans, don't have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, require companies to pay into an annuity fund backed by insurance.
Since a pension is in effect deferred payroll, going before bonds should be a matter of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway if Kodak goes bust, I'm sure the profitable niche things will get sold off and the brand will become a revenant that will grace the front of random OEM products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why pension plans suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Kodak's chief financial officer David Bullwinkle said in the company's Aug. 11 statement it plans to focus on its advanced chemicals and materials sector moving forward, and said the cut to its retirement program is going toward paying down its debt.
Kids, this is why pension plans are bad and you should instead have IRAs/401Ks. By established court precedent, pension plans have no legal protection, so the company can raid them for anything, including paying down debt. That money isn't going back - ever.
Re:Why pension plans suck (Score:5, Informative)
American kids. Be specific. In most of the world pension plans are legally highly protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the world is pay-as-you-go, so at best you have a promise of a protection by politicians who will be long gone when protection becomes really necessary.
So, not much of a difference, really.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you include "most of the world" you would, indeed, find that most countries have a social security type public systems with a few pension based systems. This is a better graphic (from the same page you linked from): https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPension_systems_by_country%23%2Fmedia%2FFile%3APension_system.svg [wikipedia.org]
EVERY EU country has a social
Re: (Score:2)
No. Pay as you go isn't at some whim of policy of the day. The protections are in place through the legal system. Politicians tweak these lightly (and even then it often results in riots) but the funds will very much be there are companies and politicians are legally unable to access the funds even through bankruptcy proceedings.
That is a very VERY big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay as you go isn't at some whim
the funds will very much be there are companies and politicians are legally unable to access the funds
There are no "funds" in the pay-as-you-go, it is a hand-to-mouth type of thing, where you collect from current generation and pay to the retired. That's why everyone and their dog have a "pension problem".
Re: (Score:2)
If the company funding the pension goes out of business, you non-Americans are also out of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain further? What makes active pensions "safe"? And what is a "company pension" vs. a "regular pension"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Definitely seems more solid than the janky system we have in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I pay into a pension fund run by my employer (well, actually, I work in the UK higher education, so it's a joint fund for UK universities but you get the drift). My employer pays in too. Should my employer go bust tomorrow, the pension fund is protected and the pension is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a problem with this reasoning.
Defined-benefit plans can only succeed if there are enough funds to pay out the defined benefits. If the pension runs out of money, either the government has to start funding the shortfall, or pensioners are out of luck.
Sure, the money put into the pension is "safe" but there is no guarantee that that money will be able to cover the defined benefits, especially if those benefits (like health care) become more expensive than originally predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
If the company funding the pension goes out of business, you non-Americans are also out of luck.
False. Most places in the world require the company funding the pension to place it in a separate legal fund inaccessible to withdrawals from the company itself. If the company goes out of business they are unable to touch the funds and the entire fund gets transferred to a 3rd party management firm. The only difference is when you retire you won't be drawing down the pension from your former employer, but rather the current fund manager.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This should be lesson 2 of a saving money, retirement planning and also appear somewhere in 'getting a US job' advice.
While they were designed to be self-managed pensions, they rarely grow like a pension. They are bad for the working and middle classes. (A moderate rate of return means most pension/self-managed schemes are under-funded.) Currently, mutual index funds and US IRAs are the only easy, high-growth, long-term investments. Also, stock-market portfolios based on market indexes do well. (The DJ
Re: (Score:2)
I am not against the concept of defined contribution vs defined benefit. It solves a lot of practical problems as far as dealing with an unknowable future.
However 401k has been a disaster for our nation I think. It flooded a ton of money into markets that previously would have sat on the side lines, that has created a lot of growth yes, but also a lot of room massive capital destruction which in turn has created a need for massive interventions to prevent what would otherwise be near ruinous deflationary
Re: (Score:1)
Where are you seeing this?
I've got multiple 401K's out there from different jobs over the years....none of them discouraged or limited me from managing it myself......
I'll grant you over the years, some had more options to choose from that other early ones, but overall I've been quite free to invest my money as I wished in my 401K's when working W2 at times.
Re: (Score:2)
interesting anecdote but my personal experience is I have never had more than maybe 50 or so funds in a handful of families to chose from.
It has never been possible to by an individual stock, bond, s-CD, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
no employees or retirees lost anything afaict here.
It's not in the article but both retirees and current employees got a choice of annuities or lump sum payments.
The pension fund was "overfunded" by a lot (because of good stock market returns over the years) and this allowed the company to get money out.
Going forward it sounds like they have a cash balance plan which is STILL a pension plan and thus still more generous than most 401k plans. (i mean... SOME companies have a generous employer contribution o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Kids, this is why pension plans are bad and you should instead have IRAs/401Ks
Also, don't take your 401K / IRA in company stock.
Love, Enron.
Re: (Score:2)
They have other ways of making money. Plus, when they retire, any business funds becomes personal wealth.
I suspect, this is why Ocasio-Cortez was denied the committee chair: The oligarchy came first. Terminally ill Connolly got the job so he could die rich, fuck the damage caused to the Democratic Party re-election.
Pharmaceuticals (Score:3)
I heard yesterday that if China and India sanction the US on pharmaceuticals up to ten million additional Americans would die within a year. Trump might just push them that far.
Kodak should seriously be pitching FDA to be the chemical engineering lifeboat for onshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Save Kodak, save most of Congress.
(I know, I know)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really should stop watching propaganda.
Re: (Score:1)
ten million extremely unfit and unhealthy people needing offshore pharmy to survive their lifetime of bad choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad choices, like living near a refinery or a fracking operation, or a chemical car falls off a railroad track in the same city, or just breathing the air or drinking the water that the FDA doesn't seem at all interested in monitoring any more. Those kind of bad choices?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
As one guy said a few years back, "elections have consequences".
Remember him?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's how elections tend to work.
It's right there in the election rules, which have been known for many years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
49% of the people in a particular area don't deserve those consequences just because 51% of the people voted for them.
How so? The logic of the election is that once it is over, everyone accepts the results and lives by them until the next election. "Deserve" or "not deserve" is beside the point, it is your subjective evaluation of the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
People can always MOVE....
Re: Pharmaceuticals (Score:2)
The voice of privilege speaks again.
Yawn.
Re: Pharmaceuticals (Score:2)
Never gonna happen - at least from India.
Our politicians are too spineless to sanction anyone especially when it comes to anything which might affect employment locally.
China on the other hand could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
An outright ban on medicines are very unlikely.
But if the prices were to rise because of some export tariff or other due to "reciprocal measures", that would create a similar risk.
In that case, would the US government reimburse the group of its citizens caught in the cross-fire?
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't think the United States, or any other country besides China, should set policy based on what is good for the people of China. If the people of China want to be "free", they need to fight their govt, just like people in other nations did. Maybe that means a bunch of those people die....just like a lot of people in other nations did.
As a U.S. taxpayer, I can't say I care much about Philippine boats either and yes, I understand the transit through international waters issue, thanks. It's j
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking something similar. If China keeps trying to sink Philippine boats with their coast guard cutters then maybe we need to cut off trade and onshore as much manufacturing as we can. (We can kind of set aside that China isn't good at sinking Philippine boats, ending up damaging their own boats instead, just making the attempt is a problem.)
As I understand the issue we don't get much in drugs from China, it's more about them shipping us what we need to make drugs here, the "precursors" for the drugs. India makes quite a few drugs for the USA but it sounds like those are mostly drugs that are no longer patented and so should be easier to onshore than the precursors we get from China.
A part of me is hoping China does something stupid enough that there's no option but to cut off all trade and declare war on them. Not that I'd expect an actual declaration of war, that's apparently not how things work today and hasn't been the case for 80 years. We just don't declare war any more, its "authorized use of military force" or some BS. I recognize that would create deadly situations, people would die, but Chinese leaders don't appear all that concerned about the lives of their own people. It's the leadership in China that is the problem, most of the people in China just want to live their lives in peace. They aren't likely to see peace so long as the Communists are in charge. The Communists are in charge because free nations like the USA are keeping them afloat with trade.
So maybe cut off trade than go to war. But that means making life worse for the innocent Chinese that live there. There's not likely a good option here. The best option may be choosing the least bad option, but what does that mean? Would a declaration of war be the least bad option? A part of me believes it may be as that would be the quickest way to free China from its own government, therefore causing the fewest dead and least harm.
If Kodak can produce the chemicals we currently buy from China then I'd say we should do something to make that happen. The less we buy from China the better.
Usually I think your comments on /. are worthwhile and coherently presented even when incorrect or overfixated on your main areas of interest. But this one feels very ungrounded in reality. The idea that the USA declaring war on China is the quickest way to free China from its own government... how do you see that happening? That sequence of events makes no sense and is contradicted by 70 years of nonstop USA failures in substantively positively changing the regimes of every region/nation we go to war with.
Impact on Rochester itself? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
going concern (Score:4, Informative)
The most surprising aspect of this story is learning that Kodak is somehow still alive and didn't go out of business years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you missed it, but there's been a pretty big resurgence of film use in the past decade or two....for stills cameras as well as it still being an important media for motion pictures. So, there's film and the development chemicals sold for that....
DIgital Camera (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They did eventually start manufacturing digital cameras, I owned one or two along the way. But it was too little, too late.
Re: (Score:2)
They did eventually start manufacturing digital cameras, I owned one or two along the way. But it was too little, too late.
I had a Kodak digital camera once. It had, bar none, the worst interface I've ever experienced on a camera. What's more, both the physical controls and the digital ones were trash.
It wasn't just too little too late, it was also too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
For me, the crappy software wasn't so bad, because I ignored it and just used USB to mount the camera's photos as a file system on my computer, which allowed me to use standard tools like File Explorer and command line scripts, to move stuff around and transfer them. But yes, for anybody who needed the software, it was indeed poorly conceived and implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't even talking about that part, I meant the menus and such on the camera. But since you mention it, that was bad too :D
Re:DIgital Camera (Score:4, Interesting)
Kodak invented the digital camera [weforum.org], but its leadership feared it would cannibalize its film business so it killed it. The company would be in a different place if it had accepted the innovation, refined the digital camera and produced a product.
That's a bit oversimplified, because I don't think digital cameras killed Kodak - Instagram did.
Before the cell phone converged everything, we had cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, and...digital still cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, and Kodak were all on display at your local Circuit City and Fry's. While Canon had a bit of a vertical with their inkjet printers, Kodak actually WAS pretty innovative with their entire EasyShare platform - one could download photos to the PC and use the online EasyShare Gallery (an early Flikr with limited free space and paid tiers), or use the dock printer and pop out printed photos. It was a digital camera system so easy that grandparents the world over embraced it. While Canon and Nikon used their consumer cameras to on-ramp hobbyists to their SLR cameras, Kodak used their cameras to sell EasyShare memberships and the dye-sub printer paper cartridges.
Instagram catapulted camera phones from being "the inferior camera that is used when my phone is the only thing I have on me", to "the default camera". Phones ended up getting similar sensors to the dedicated devices, and the ability to share photos via Facebook and Instagram and MMS meant that there was no need for ANYTHING akin to the EasyShare system. The cameras weren't necessary anymore because the phone was built-in, the EasyShare Gallery wasn't necessary because Instagram was free, and fewer and fewer photos were getting printed at all, because sharing was possible both immediately and irrespective of location.
I think Kodak could have pivoted more to being a chemical company like BASF and survived, but Instagram and services like it were the ultimate evolution that Kodak simply couldn't compete with any more than Polaroid could.
Re: (Score:2)
IMAX film availability? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Christopher Nolan can (and probably will) lean into Digital IMAX. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Christopher Nolan can (and probably will) lean into Digital IMAX.
Nolan has said repeatedly that digital IMAX is not equal to film IMAX. Maybe he will change his mind at some point, but not today.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Christopher has a problem of his own making.
Saying that digital is not equal is true, but not meaningful. The resolution of today's 4K movies, even IMAX, is so high that it is indistinguishable from analog (film) by human beings. Sure, maybe an expert who knows what to look for, could tell. But that misses the point. Digital does not worsen the movie viewer's experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ORWO makes color film as well, AFAIK, but only negative. Which I'm sure is fine for studios, but I want color reversal film. Ektachrome is expensive though, so I can't use a lot of it.
Wait... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
(Kodak) disposable cameras can still be found in shops, and last time this came out (some months ago) someone on this forum said they were popular at weddings. Also, some company purchased the rights to the brand in Europe and designs audio/video/camera gear. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kodak.gtcie.com%2F [gtcie.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Fake News and the death of journalism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations!!! Fake News has arrived to Slashdot!!!! We are so "grown up": https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kodak.com%2Fen%2Fcompa... [kodak.com]
Anyone, specially journalists who "supposadly" had to do this "kind of work" ara just 3 clics away of reading the last Kodak financial report: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kodak.com%2Fen%2Fcompa... [kodak.com]
Now, rejoice in the "wonderful" World we live in. THOUSANDS of media outlets worldwide HADN'T DONE their due dilligence. And now you wonder why you have "news media" (like all these ones: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstati... [statista.com]) have stopped spreading news about reality and a manufacturing "news"?
Just an example, in the fantasy world of Fox News: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpoliti... [foxnews.com]
Sadly, in the real World, gang violence in Chile has grown TRIPLE digits in just last year: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprocure.lat%2Factualidad... [procure.lat]
So, whatever they are doing it's not an example to anyone.
Dude, you forgot your meds again!
not gonna miss them (Score:2)
from the company that went all in on "digital cameras are just a fad".
Embracing bad business decisions is supposed to put you out of business. I'm amazed they're still around at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Kodak knew that digital cameras were going to supplant film cameras.
What they failed to predict was that digital *viewing* of photos would, virtually overnight, supplant prints.
capitalism (Score:1)
cut to its retirement program (Score:2)
Sooo, the people who worked the hardest are getting tossed to the curb to pay for management's mistakes. Typical. I am betting that the body count will be less than 10,000, but... each one of those people are real people and their lives mean NOTHING in the face of greed. I am betting upper management have kept their own retirement options unchanged.
Mind you, Kodak was once a bluechip stock. As solid as IBM and General Electric (was/were). They created one of the earliest digital cameras (maybe even the firs