Reuben Gant Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 You don't actually think that way, do you? The better product doesn't make a difference? That's just retarded. However, there are many things that go into a product, including marketing. Branding, etc. Some lines of Nike products are a great example of this. Is a shirt that has a nike swoosh on it better than an identical shirt that doesnt? No. It isn't. However, Nike is a marketing powerhouse, and branding is an important part of a product. So because of the brand, the Nike shirt is actually percieved as better to the consumer. Therefore, it is the better product. If that's what you are trying to say, I agree. If not, well, I might have a giggle. 386614[/snapback] The best product is the product that maximizes profit. It is ultimately indifferent to quality. Sometimes the product that maximizes profit has high quality. But, bottled water for example is of no better quality than most tap water, but it is a great product in terms of the abilty to make a profit. You can agree or giggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 nike pays about $ 10 per pair of shoes for adds an $ 2 per pair for labor and sell them fo 50 - 150 dollars per pair . HOW much is it to make the shoes in the US 5 0r 6 dollars per pair . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Finally, it's about Kodak still not facing the music about the switch to digital. Kodak is still a follower in the digital world. They aren't innovating, and they are still playing catch- up. I remember my last year there - 2003 - when all of the camera phones were coming out. People asked the then CEO Dan Carp about why Kodak wasn't ahead of the curve in that technology and Carp said "Well, we're not sure that this camera-phone technology is here to stay, so we're approaching it cautiously and we'll see how it shakes out." Serously. That's what he said. It was then that I knew Kodak would never really change. There is a serious retardation in innovation at that company. They will never innovate. Ever. You can have the best R&D department in the world, but if the company doesn't point them in the right direction it doesn't matter. And at Kodak, the management direction is so piss poor it's too late. This has nothing to do about outsourcing to India, it has to do with poor management decisions. Paying too much for unskilled labor and employee sloth played a part, but not as much as you'd think. Can't say I'm not sad to see this happen to Kodak. I can say I'm glad I'm not there to see it and be a part of it myself. 386559[/snapback] You are complaining about camera phones? Seriously, it was not unusual to think that they wouldn't catch on as many thought that the poor picture quality and the cost of getting them off the phone wouldn't be worth it. To be honest, I am not sure they have caught on as much as people think. The wireless companies have put them on almost all the phones they sell now because of the incentive to encourage people to use their services. People buy them often because this is the phone they give you when they sign up. As far as R&D goes, the solution to not having good enough products as you say they lack is not to cut back on R&D. Focus? Google has had little focus in its research. It simply encourages smart people to innovate and it it's reaping rewards. If anything, focus is a bad thing as any stuffed-suit often has little idea about the proper focus in research. If it's about the best products winning, why has Kodak had many quarters where it has the largest market share in cameras lately? You say it's strickly capitalism, and free markets are often the most efficient way to do things, but that doesn't mean that cutting many of these jobs is the right thing for Kodak to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Nice try. Don't try to speak for me, or what I feel is right or wrong. I'm speaking about products, and how people choose to buy them. So get to the point, if you have one. 386603[/snapback] I found time to get back. Nice try yourself. Thicken up your skin and stop the penny-ante insults. Products and how people choose to buy them is not a divorced concept from the bigger economic well-being. If you think it's advisable for that to be totally unfettered, you stand in stark opposition to the workings of nations ever since the concept dawned. You can sit back and see 400 billion or whatever trade deficits, but social unrest will eventually rear it's head - a fact of history. This very device we communicate with is a big player. Got a plan fot the great unwashed and unemployed? Re-train them for a 7 buck an hour job? Turn them into Soylent Green? Awaiting your innuendo, snubs, belittlements etc. Oops, there I go again - speaking for you. Shame on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The best product is the product that maximizes profit. It is ultimately indifferent to quality. Sometimes the product that maximizes profit has high quality. But, bottled water for example is of no better quality than most tap water, but it is a great product in terms of the abilty to make a profit. You can agree or giggle 386616[/snapback] I'd change "sometimes" to "most of the time" the product that maximizes profit has high quality, and then agree with you. Of course, there are price points, and market segments that go into the equation, but I'd agree that most of the time the product that produces the most profit is the one of the highest quality. There are always exceptions to this. VHS vs. Beta, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Awaiting your innuendo, snubs, belittlements etc. Oops, there I go again - speaking for you. Shame on me. 386636[/snapback] Hi kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Hi kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot. 386639[/snapback] You d*ck. I hope your ancient electrics burst into flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 If it's about the best products winning, why has Kodak had many quarters where it has the largest market share in cameras lately? You say it's strickly capitalism, and free markets are often the most efficient way to do things, but that doesn't mean that cutting many of these jobs is the right thing for Kodak to do. 386632[/snapback] Kodak has had a top 3 market share in the US. Commendable. But they don't make enough money on digital cameras alone. They also don't play in quite a few market segments. For example, they don't play in the Pro-sumer market, or high-end consumer markets. Their service products such as Ofoto are losing ground to products such as Flickr and Snapfish. They just can't keep up. I worked at Kodak, and saw quite a bit of bloat. I think Kodak is probably accellerating it's cuts to deal with it's poor profits. It sucks when you lose your job. I know, I dealt with it. I also think I should have seen it coming and done something about it myself instead of waiting for the ax to fall. The problem is that Kodak just isn't selling enough film to justify it's manufacturing workforce in that area. It's too bad, but that's what happens when management sucks. What could have been handled by attrition if recognized early enough now has to be done with cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Great post todd. What a friggin shame for the workers and their families. 386562[/snapback] It's really too bad. When I was laid off it really sucked. I hated it. But hindsight is 20-20, and I should have seen it coming. Kodak was going down, and one of the first things that are cut are cost centers - IT being one of them. 85% of my group was cut. However, since then I've learned that getting out of Kodak will end up being great for my career. At least I kept up my marketable skills, kept a decent network of potential employers, and am doing well. In today's market if people don't do that, they are screwed. I hope others have done the same. If they have, they'll be OK. If anyone has neglected their own job skills, and expected to be employed by kodak forever after all the cuts that have happened recently, I can't imagine what they are thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The only surpise here is that Kodak still had 1000 employees left to let go. This is actually one of their smaller job cuts. They must need the extra money to try and get the Kodak car to finish inside the top 25. My Dad left Kodak years ago, right about the time the cuts started. He opted for early retirement rather than take a demotion. He obviously made the right move. My step-mom still works there in the graphics dept and has been holding her breath for the past few years. It's always something with the big yellow box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I'd change "sometimes" to "most of the time" the product that maximizes profit has high quality, and then agree with you. Of course, there are price points, and market segments that go into the equation, but I'd agree that most of the time the product that produces the most profit is the one of the highest quality. There are always exceptions to this. VHS vs. Beta, for example. 386637[/snapback] What you state I believe is a common misperception. Most of the time cutting costs wherever possible and charging the most the market will bear for the lowest quality goods or services that can consistently be sold is the key to maximizing profits. A company's most profitable item can be low end and of poor quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 No, it's not only about that. This isn't a momentary dip in revenue. This is a slow decline that is now an unstoppable avalanche. Kodak will continue to decline because there are too many people there who have no idea about innovation and what it takes to save a sinking ship. This is about about Kodak - 15 years ago - not having the ability to start a wholesale investment in digital. It's Kodak - only 8 years ago - not having the ability to make a comittment to the switch to digital. When I worked there - even as recently as 3 years ago - there was still talk of "expanding the benefits of film." I saw it with my own eyes. It was amazingly retarded. Finally, it's about Kodak still not facing the music about the switch to digital. Kodak is still a follower in the digital world. They aren't innovating, and they are still playing catch- up. I remember my last year there - 2003 - when all of the camera phones were coming out. People asked the then CEO Dan Carp about why Kodak wasn't ahead of the curve in that technology and Carp said "Well, we're not sure that this camera-phone technology is here to stay, so we're approaching it cautiously and we'll see how it shakes out." Serously. That's what he said. It was then that I knew Kodak would never really change. There is a serious retardation in innovation at that company. They will never innovate. Ever. You can have the best R&D department in the world, but if the company doesn't point them in the right direction it doesn't matter. And at Kodak, the management direction is so piss poor it's too late. This has nothing to do about outsourcing to India, it has to do with poor management decisions. Paying too much for unskilled labor and employee sloth played a part, but not as much as you'd think. Can't say I'm not sad to see this happen to Kodak. I can say I'm glad I'm not there to see it and be a part of it myself. 386559[/snapback] This is a great post. Play this scene out in other businesses past and present. I bolded the best part... You know, everybody's favorite... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Like jimmy griffin said the last one turn the lights off. Its too bad that place can't get its act together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Like jimmy griffin said the last one turn the lights off. Its too bad that place can't get its act together. 386773[/snapback] I thought he said get a 6-pack, sit back and relax or something like that about the Blizzard? He must have been a man of many quotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 The only surpise here is that Kodak still had 1000 employees left to let go. This is actually one of their smaller job cuts. They must need the extra money to try and get the Kodak car to finish inside the top 25. My Dad left Kodak years ago, right about the time the cuts started. He opted for early retirement rather than take a demotion. He obviously made the right move. My step-mom still works there in the graphics dept and has been holding her breath for the past few years. It's always something with the big yellow box. 386660[/snapback] It's actually 10,000 cuts...22,500 to 25,000 by the middle of 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 No, it's not only about that. This isn't a momentary dip in revenue. This is a slow decline that is now an unstoppable avalanche. Kodak will continue to decline because there are too many people there who have no idea about innovation and what it takes to save a sinking ship. This is about about Kodak - 15 years ago - not having the ability to start a wholesale investment in digital. It's Kodak - only 8 years ago - not having the ability to make a comittment to the switch to digital. When I worked there - even as recently as 3 years ago - there was still talk of "expanding the benefits of film." I saw it with my own eyes. It was amazingly retarded. Finally, it's about Kodak still not facing the music about the switch to digital. Kodak is still a follower in the digital world. They aren't innovating, and they are still playing catch- up. I remember my last year there - 2003 - when all of the camera phones were coming out. People asked the then CEO Dan Carp about why Kodak wasn't ahead of the curve in that technology and Carp said "Well, we're not sure that this camera-phone technology is here to stay, so we're approaching it cautiously and we'll see how it shakes out." Serously. That's what he said. It was then that I knew Kodak would never really change. There is a serious retardation in innovation at that company. They will never innovate. Ever. You can have the best R&D department in the world, but if the company doesn't point them in the right direction it doesn't matter. And at Kodak, the management direction is so piss poor it's too late. This has nothing to do about outsourcing to India, it has to do with poor management decisions. Paying too much for unskilled labor and employee sloth played a part, but not as much as you'd think. Can't say I'm not sad to see this happen to Kodak. I can say I'm glad I'm not there to see it and be a part of it myself. 386559[/snapback] Kodak is not the first and will not be the last big dumb company. What usually happens is that stifled and entrepenurial engineers jump ship, start their own companies that 'get it,' and eventually displace the dinosaurs. The question is: why hasn't Rochester become the startup hub of digital innovation the way San Diego and elsewhere did for digital video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Kodak is not the first and will not be the last big dumb company. 387313[/snapback] Circle of life. A person is smart. People are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Why hasn't Rochester become the startup hub of digital innovation the way San Diego and elsewhere did for digital video? 387313[/snapback] 3 Reasons: 1. New York State Government. 2. Monroe County Government. 3. Rochester City Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 That is a consumer choice. Capitalism is not about making the best product. It is about making the most money. The organizing principle of capitalism is to maximize profits. Toyota making better cars than GM makes no difference, price makes no difference. Whatever maximizes profits makes the difference. Lay people off to if it maximizes profits. It is ultimately indifferent to the quality of products. 386611[/snapback] Bzzt. He who has the best product at the cheapest cost wins. See: Wal-Mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Bzzt. He who has the best product at the cheapest cost wins. See: Wal-Mart. 387341[/snapback] That's why I buy all my clothes, kitchen appliances, home theater, computer equipment, and automobile accessories there. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts