8 ms·

Kodak has no plans to cease, go out of business, or file for bankruptcy

• joshuablog 1y ago
  [dead]
• FredPret 1y ago
  They've been a marginal concern for years now, though there still seems to be plenty of revenue to work with: http://valustox.com/KODK http://valustox.com/KODK
• busterarm 1y ago
  They've been killing it with new products lately. Specifically the new film stock without Remjet and Lucky C200.
  • tecleandor 1y ago
    Lucky C200 uses the old Kodak factory/es but they are an independent Chinese company, isn't it? Same as Fotoimpex/ADOX bought Ilford equipment... And btw, what's the new remjet-less film? I'm not up to date lately...
    • busterarm 1y ago
      It's the new version of Vision 3. https://mimundoensuper-8.blogspot.com/2025/06/kodak-removes-remjet-for-future-vision3.html https://mimundoensuper-8.blogspot.com/2025/06/kodak-removes-...
• ilamont 1y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597
  • dylan604 1y ago
    In today's post-truth alt-facts world, will this actually do anything to convince otherwise?
    • johnnyanmac 1y ago
      In this world where business's make bold faced lies,I'm not even sure I fully believe this. It could be a half truth like "we aren't going bankrupt... But we're gonna look at being acquired by private equity in the next few months". But this is a film/camera company so I guess I have no skin in this game anyway. Just giving a bit of scrutiny based on other experiences like this.
      • m3047 1y ago
        Kodak at one time was a powerhouse of applied chemistry, curating a huge library of chemical compounds. I know this because a particular early biotech company rented out the processes (in their own labs) they were developing so that Kodak could test some of these chemicals for particular forms of biological activity. That's how the biotech managed to have cash flow before they were allowed to let any material whatsoever out of the lab, let alone near humans. (I also worked for Kodak for a brief time supporting a "dark line" where they packaged photosensitive products. A kick in the ass, great fun, very disciplined, and writing code which ran machinery in a black box!)
    • cubefox 1y ago
      We will see. The Kodak stock is still 22.5% down over the past 5 days.
  • abirch 1y ago
    This is from Kodak's Q2 Financial report: As a result, these conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern as of the issuance date of the Company’s second quarter financials. https://www.kodak.com/en/company/press-release/q2-2025-financial-results/ https://www.kodak.com/en/company/press-release/q2-2025-finan... As Walter Bagehot said "Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone..."
• bitdivision 1y ago
  One of the 'misleading media reports' for context: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/14/kodak-going-concern-gen-z-film.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/14/kodak-going-concern-gen-z-fi...
  • dylan604 1y ago
    Or the entire HN thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270
• skybrian 1y ago
  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?
  • FabHK 1y ago
    Matt Levine - that's impossibly high standards... but here's an attempt: If a business shuts down, the assets on its book have to be written down to what you could get in a quick sale, their liquidation value, minus the costs of closing shop. And of course, once you’re closed, there’s no more income. The standard assumption for bookkeeping is that the business will keep operating. This is the "going concern" assumption, and it lets you value the assets as part of the ongoing business. Switching from "going concern" to liquidation accounting drops the book value, maybe a lot. If there's debt coming due in the near future that the business can't repay, the survival of the business is in question. An accountant would then have to issue a "going concern" warning. That is, however, not a prediction of doom. Here's Kodak's Q10 form, with the "going concern" note on page 8: https://investor.kodak.com/static-files/17a780a0-cd47-4128-8445-418b5d4f0f48 https://investor.kodak.com/static-files/17a780a0-cd47-4128-8... Looks like they have some debt coming due, but expect to get a cash boost from terminating their pension plan (after meeting all their obligations). So the company plans to continue their business, and is confident that they will. But that is technically predicated on certain conditions (being able to roll over some debt, getting that cash as anticipated) that's not entirely under Kodak's control, and so there is that going concern warning: we think it'll be fine, but we still have to tell you. Apparently that was misunderstood as a prediction of bankruptcy or intention to close shop.
    • skybrian 1y ago
      Thanks!
• jihadjihad 1y ago
  Reports of its death were wildly exaggerated?
  • theandrewbailey 1y ago
    A company reporting an "ongoing concern" isn't dead yet.
• blindriver 1y ago
  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.
  • barbazoo 1y ago
    People love their ingroup terminology and quirks. Like that a power cable connecting the RV is a shoreline (eyeroll) and that ships are female (double eyeroll).
    • soulofmischief 1y ago
      What's wrong with a standardized vernacular or domain-specific language?
      • cyral 1y ago
        This particular one gives the opposite meaning to anyone unfamiliar with the term
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • otterley 1y ago
      Many languages use gendered nouns today including German and Spanish; the few remaining in English are a holdover from centuries past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English
  • Hilift 1y ago
    Qualified opinion. Definition: An auditor's report that indicates the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, except for the effects of a specific departure from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or a limitation in the scope of the audit.
• mandeepj 1y ago
  Maybe someone had a huge Short position
  • cluckindan 1y ago
    Someone like media executives amplifying the news in a negative light. It does reek of market manipulation. Edit: the short volume on 2025-08-12 was ten times that of 2025-08-11: https://fintel.io/ssv/us/kodk https://fintel.io/ssv/us/kodk So that happened the same day the news articles went public, when the SEC filing was published already on the 11th. Someone might be looking to buy the company.
    • hinkley 1y ago
      Market manipulation can also be used to cover an existing short position. More likely to be an act of desperation as well.
• Mistletoe 1y ago
  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?
  • nebula8804 1y ago
    Probably not within our lifetimes. IBM is still around. We can see from companies like Sears that it can take a long time for a company to completely disappear. They lasted what around 125 years right? Would be interesting to see how long NVIDIA lasts. Out of the companies you mentioned, if we look really long term they are the most replaceable, ie. on a long enough time horizon the Chinese could completely replicate/leapfrog what they do, they could become completely commoditized like sound cards were, or someone comes along that makes them irrelevant. Google/Microsoft have long term lock in that will keep them at the very least a trailing edge player just due to all the lock in and the bureaucracy of switching that entails.
• ChrisArchitect 1y ago
  Related: Kodak says it might have to cease operations https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270
• daft_pink 1y ago
  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
  • jordanb 1y ago
    Yeah I worked for Sears. "Going concern" notice went out pretty much with the minimum legal notice period ahead of bankruptcy.
    • throwway120385 1y ago
      In this case Kodak has a plan for avoiding the situation, but it almost entirely depends on market conditions and the current holder of the pension obligations. They have the cash, but it's tied up contractually and they're working to release the contract so they can use the cash to pay down some debt. Incidentally pharmaceutical manufacturing and some of the other industries they're in are still very good industries to be in. So they could still pull through.
      • daft_pink 1y ago
        They could pull through and I think in all likelihood the business would be purchased and not go under if they didn't. But the company remains in a precarious position.
• porphyra 1y ago
  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.
  • camillomiller 1y ago
    Fujifilm was able to make a massive comeback with a big pivot towards chemical. They're the best at making anything film-related, including a lot of stuff the pharma industry needs. The camera division is extremely profitable due to the Instax golden goose: great marketing, stellar margins both on the cameras and the consumables.
    • hoytschermerhrn 1y ago
      Somewhat surprisingly, they’ve also successfully diversified into high-end skincare, applying their chemical expertise to moisturizer forumulations and whatnot.
      • hinkley 1y ago
        Film chemistry involves a lot of emulsions does it not?
        • hoytschermerhrn 1y ago
          Yes, exactly. Apparently the chemistry for film emulsion is very similar to what’s needed for skin applications. I think a lot of companies would not be so forward-thinking, so I give them a lot of credit here.
• PaulHoule 1y ago
  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 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 https://mastodon.social/@UP8/113240678816336189 … and I can afford to do it!
  • the_af 1y ago
    Hey Paul, this comment sparked my curiosity: > Got a lot of great photos this time because I put to use what I learned shooting basketball. I suppose you mean "action photos"? Any (informal, quick and dirty) tips? Especially for photos to be taken with phones or cheap cameras? Or is it hopeless?
    • EvanAnderson 1y ago
      I still shoot primarily on DSLR. I don't know how a modern mirrorless compares, but for me shutter lag is the big killer when it comes to action shots. I grew up shooting 35mm film and my first digital cameras were a shock with their significant shutter lag. To some extent I can "learn" the lag for a given camera and compensate somewhat for things that move regularly. For irregular motion (like sports) shutter lag is maddening. Re: hopeless - I supposed you could use multi-shot burst on laggy cameras and pull the trigger early.
      • UltraSane 1y ago
        Modern digital cameras have a mode where they are constantly taking pictures in a small rolling buffer and when you press the "shutter" button it simply keeps the last n seconds of images. It is an amazing feature for action photography and is how a LOT of amazing shots have been captured. With 6k and higher res video the line between video and photography is blurring and with RAW codecs you can just capture scenes in video and pic out what frames you like.
• codr7 1y ago
  https://github.com/codr7/hacktical-c/blob/1406322cde3c46aab83c3a3ce8007be87b74f3e2/vector/vector.h#L9 https://github.com/codr7/hacktical-c/blob/1406322cde3c46aab8...
• MarkusWandel 1y ago
  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?
  • pests 1y ago
    Correct
  • throw0101a 1y ago
    See my comment from two days ago in previous thread: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44876283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44876283 AIUI, the money they are taking out is 'surplus'. All current obligations will be handed off to either an insurance company / annuity or lump sum. Future retirement funds will probably be in personal 401(k)s.
• whalesalad 1y ago
  Kodak deserves to just die. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/kodaks-nazi-connections/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/kodaks-nazi-connec...
  • blueflow 1y ago
    Everyone from back then is dead. Ship of Theseus something.
• joshuablog 1y ago
  [flagged]
• joshuablog 1y ago
  [dead]
• throwmeaway222 1y ago
  where do they get cash from?
• mococa 1y ago
  They make good lenses; the lenses in my glasses are theirs.
• Insanity 1y ago
  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..
  • akkad33 1y ago
    It's a camera, not a car
    • Insanity 1y ago
      That can still be an expensive costing hundreds to thousands of dollars once you add additional lenses etc. Even hundreds of dollars for a camera is not “throw away money” for a lot of people..
    • tjr 1y ago
      I for one have been known to keep some cameras longer than some cars.
      • vladvasiliu 1y ago
        I think it depends on what you do with them. If your living depends on the camera, you're probably not buying Kodak anyway, since in that case you're buying more into a system, which Kodak doesn't have. If you're an amateur, it's likely that it will outlive its warranty anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference. Also, since there's no "system", grabbing a different one isn't that expensive financially.
    • ozgrakkurt 1y ago
      Cameras can get really expensive, and kodak isn’t the only option. So it is very likely that the situation GP wrote would happen
  • kotaKat 1y ago
    The problem is the brand dilution that’s already happened has already turned some people off from the brand. I really don’t know what they were going for approving it on an air purifier.
• rglover 1y ago
  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.
  • squidsoup 1y ago
    Kodak make exceptional film that no one else makes, or can make. There is no replacement for Portra. Anyone can make a soulless digital camera.
    • rglover 1y ago
      I don't doubt that, but most consumers are not professional photographers. They want results that look professional. A digital camera is a no-brainer combined with a printing station where the phone just docks. They already have a version of this, but if they control hardware they could make it really solid—no compatibility issues, no headaches, just exactly what you want: an easy way to capture high-quality memories that don't get lost in the void of your camera roll.
      • jfim 1y ago
        Phones already do a lot of processing of images to make them look better than what a digital camera would capture out of the box, and Kodak already makes such a dock, it's called the Kodak dock: https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/printing-scanning/photo-printers/instant-dock-printer/ https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/printing-scanning/...
        • rekabis 1y ago
• _9y71 1y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28024539
• hypertexthero 1y ago
  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!
  • sammyteee 1y ago
    This ^
  • rekabis 1y ago
    I’m not understanding the use case, here. Aren’t there plenty of no-name disposable Chinese cameras like this? For me, it’s capabilities beyond a cellphone camera, in a package not much bigger. One of the biggest frustrations is taking a photo of something and the phone’s limited optical resolution makes that item nothing more than a tiny spec in a large 48 megapixel image. Yes, even the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s 5× zoom is horrifically inadequate for a good 40% of the photos and videos I take. That’s why I rock a Nikon Coolpix A1000 - it does 4K video, has a 35× optical zoom, and all sorts of other goodies in a package that can collapse down into a block that’s not much thicker than a paperback book, and even smaller (H&W) than my iPhone. It’s small enough to fit into my satchel as an EDC for use at a moment’s notice, and not something that requires special dispensation every time I want to drag it along. Consumers want flexibility in a portable package. There is no way I’d be able to drop another type of superzoom like the Nikon P1000 into my satchel, despite the much more attractive 125× optical zoom. It’s just too chonky as a whip-it-out-in-a-heartbeat EDC.
• paul7986 1y ago
  Maybe they can make a comeback using AI and work with Open AI to enhance Open AI's upcoming camera built into their device. There's a lot that can be done using AI to enhance the UX of taking and photos themselves!
• xenadu02 1y ago
  There are plenty of areas Kodak could make a difference if they cared to. Fuji's instant Polaroid-like camera is a novelty and we still use it. Getting an immediate physical print is entertaining for people of all ages these days. The security camera business is crowded but mostly with low image quality garbage. For that matter webcams are also often garbage. A quality camera with optical zoom and good ISP and low light performance could do really well, especially with so much remote work. The market for high speed cameras is still under-served. As is the market for high quality microscope cameras. There are lots of opportunities out there if you aren't only focused on products that can sell a billion units.
• t1234s 1y ago
  Any chance Kodak is still doing work for the US Military?
• DonHopkins 1y ago
  Flash! Developing story. Film at eleven.
• rc_mob 1y ago
  love this. hearty fuck you to whoever wrote the misleading article
• iLoveOncall 1y ago
  This reads as the same announcements that shady crypto exchanges were posting right before running away with the funds and closing down. I don't wish that for Kodac but I mean their first bullet point specifically says "repay or extend". Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
• dannyxertify 1y ago
  Long life to Kodak! You are an inspiration!