Apple makes money; Gateway profits down 25%

  • Posted: 16 January 2002 07:08 PM #76

    On the topic of iPhoto’s print ordering, I can only speak from experience.
    When I want prints from my digital images, I will continue to use the same service (epixel.com) that I have always used. This is mainly due to the fact that I have already taken the time to calibrate a gamma setting for my monitor that matches the processor’s output. Not to mention the great prices that they offer.

    I would think that the largest number of people that will use iPhoto/Kodak’s service wil be people who’ve never ordered prints online before. I doubt it will worry many existing web-photofinishers.
    Once you find a decent source for prints, you tend to stick with them.
    -Dan

    Signature

    "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    What’s the difference between a Mac and a PC? Macs are designed, PCs are assembled.

         
  • Posted: 16 January 2002 07:35 PM #77

    Unfortunately, 99% (no joke) of the 15 billion (no joke again) digital images shot last year were not professionally printed.  90% were not printed at all.  Well over 60% of the unprinted images were saved though, and every survey I have seen indicates that most of these people are waiting for someone to give them a way to get prints that are as good, as cheap and as easy as they were from film.  On top of this is the appeal that the iMac has for early adopters, who are just starting to buy digital cameras.  The 15 billion images last year is just the tip of the iceberg, and nobody has secured the print fulfillment yet. 

    Yes, EVERYONE in the industry, even other big boys like Sony, are worried about what Kodak is doing.

         
  • Posted: 17 January 2002 09:37 AM #78

    On 2002-01-16 19:15, pagefault wrote:
    Kodak is no different and no better than Microsoft.  You cannot rail against one monopoly while you are in bed with another.

    As far as I know, Kodak is not a monopoly yet.  Especially not in the “95% of the market” that Microsoft has.

    If you have evidence to show otherwise, I’d like to see it.

    Signature


    —R.J.
    G5 Inside

         
  • Posted: 17 January 2002 11:10 AM #79

    I did not have time to do a thorough search on antitrust law and Kodak and I am still waiting for our marketing group to get back to me with current market share numbers for paper and chemicals, processing, kiosks, consumer imaging, etc., but here are some bits from the FTC site.  I did not have time to read all 74 articles referencing Kodak, sorry.

    http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/mason1098.htm#N_9_

    When it turned to the monopolization claim, the Court first concluded, based largely on its prior analysis of tying, that the facts could establish that Kodak had monopoly power in two relevant product markets…that Kodak adopted exclusionary parts and service policies in order to acquire or maintain monopoly power.

    http://www.ftc.gov/opp/global/speech.htm

    [Kodak has] a 67% domestic market share, when measured by unit sales, and a 75% share when measured in dollars. Kodak’s market share was six times greater than its nearest rival Fuji, despite Fuji’s lower prices, a fleet of blimps and a $2 million infomercial made by former President Reagan. Kodak was also able to charge retailers 10% more for its film while maintaining what the Circuit Court characterized as “Kodak’s dominant position in the United States.”

    http://www.ftc.gov/opp/jointvent/classic1&2.htm

    Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 477 (1992) (hereinafter, Kodak) (“It is clearly reasonable to infer that Kodak has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets, since respondents offer direct evidence that Kodak did so.”).

    http://www.ftc.gov/opp/global/jorde2.htm

    In Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979), the Second Circuit applied rule of reason analysis rather than per se rules to cooperative innovation and product development agreements, specifically rejecting the plaintiff’s request for a per se jury charge. Id. at 302. Nevertheless, the court recognized that such agreements may be unreasonably restrictive, particularly when one of the parties has significant market power, and affirmed the jury’s verdict that Kodak’s separate joint development agreements with Sylvania and GE concerning magicube and flipflash products unreasonably restrained trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Id.

         
  • Posted: 17 January 2002 11:35 AM #80

    By the way, I think I am going to have to get one of those Monopoly XP shirts.