Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: General Schvantzkoph Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware Subject: Re: Scanner recommendations? Date: 23 Dec 2011 02:06:35 GMT Lines: 48 Message-ID: <9li61bF3omU1@mid.individual.net> References: <9jekqrFi87U1@mid.individual.net> <4ef29adc$0$9507$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net jd4Np9Cr6LfIy5X+cjHYaQaqKVECLpEWIvqzTUFn4VGCLjz6+p Cancel-Lock: sha1:zPXnpxvW4bHt5gwa4biLes/qbXY= User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.hardware:928 On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:50:38 -0500, Michael Black wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2011, Not Disclosed wrote: > >> What about the new Kodak all in ones? >> > Is Kodak a reliable company at the moment? > > I saw something in the paper recently about how much the value of its > stock has declined, because digital cameras have mostly replaced film > cameras. So no more cameras, no more film, no film developing network. > > So at the moment, surely Kodak is trying to become something new (just > like Polaroid), yet not have the old to keep it healthy while it finds > its place. > > At the point where Kodak is at the moment, many companies falter, > relying on putting their well known brand on someone else's product. It > happened forty years ago when I got my first Hallicrafter's shortwave > receiver, a cheap transistorized one that clearly was Hallicrafter's in > name only. The company changes, and the only thing of value is the name, > yet that name can't be that valuable if the company is no longer > producing their own stuff. It may work for a while, for the people who > always buy by brand name, but once the products become similar to > everyone else, the brand can't mean a thing. > > Over a decade ago I bought an "RCA" CD player, but I had no illusion, I > was buying cheap, and that's the name that was on it, I sure didn't go > after some product because it had "RCA" on it, and I had no illusion > that I was getting some superior product because of the name. > > Michael Kodak was a sick company long before film died. When was the last time you owned a Kodak film camera? My parents had an Instamatic in the 1960s, that's the last Kodak camera that anyone in my family has owned. My film cameras were a Pentax, a Nikon and a Canon. I did use Kodak film, which was top rate. But their great films had been developed decades before, Kodachrome was introduced in the 1930s. There wasn't a lot of reason to introduce new films because the ones that were out there were as good as they needed to be. So Kodak wasn't prepared for the world of consumer electronics where everything is obsoleted in less than a year. It's not looking good for Kodak's survival which is unfortunate, I'd hate to see another iconic company disappear. But they are nearing the end of their resources and they haven't found a new market where they are competitive.