4 ms·
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 ori
by 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 agoIt's a camera, not a car
- Insanity 1y agoThat 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 agoI for one have been known to keep some cameras longer than some cars.
- vladvasiliu 1y agoI 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 agoCameras 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 agoThe 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.