Kodak died 6 years ago when they went bankrupt, and split into 2 Kodaks: Alaris and Eastman. EastMan Kodak is the one that we're talking about here. They mostly make money by selling their brand name. That Kodak phone that came out a couple of years back was made entirely by another company, and Kodak just slapped their brand name on it for some cash.

Kodak Alaris is the company that makes photographic film (but not cinema film, that's Eastman). They're not going anywhere fast. I think that the number of film shooters, and demand for film, is going to stay relatively constant for the next decade.

They're not however monopolists. My favourite mid- and high-end lines (in color) are all made by Fuji and high-end BW has been consolidating/merging into a big Ilford/Kentmere conglomerate.

Fuji are killing off their film lines though: http://ffis.fujifilm.co.jp/information/articlein_0072.html

These are the 5 packs of Velvia, Provia, and Superia. It's not a good sign, although maybe economically it makes sense? They've also completely killed off Acros in 4x5 and 120, I'm stocking up on the 4x5 boxes.

I'm super stocked in Fuji slide stock. A lot of 120, and I don't even have a 120 camera anymore. I also have a box of Agfa CT Precisa, which is like the prettiest slide film for cross-processing.

I'm hoping (most of) these can fetch good prices in ~5 years time.

>If this fails, it is quite possibly the last nail for Kodak..

The equivalent of the founder taking all the remaining company funds to Vegas and betting it all on black.

Were you referring to FedEx, or just pointing out the riskiness? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/fred-smith-blackja...

Wow, that is one heck of a story! As a business owner, some things come to mind:

- How do you explain (to the tax man, really) where the money comes from?

- Isn't this a gross misappropriation of company funds, and very much illegal?

- How does this guy find pants to fit his enormous balls?

The company got an investment from his personal funds. If you are asking about where he as a person got money, Vegas is legal and likely gives tax receipts.

He took a loan from the company; if he couldn't pay it back then yeah he is in deep trouble but he could.

So you're saying it's only a problem if I lose? Well I like those odds ;)

This actually triggered a random memory of some court-room drama where a quant embezzled a bunch of money to buy lottery tickets though a system he devised, won, and then got charged after paying back the stolen seed money... in hindsight he woulda gotten away with his fictitious crime if he were a CEO or boardmember...

I believe only shareholders could.

Wait, so which was it – he used $5000 of his own money or the company's?

I'm surprised loaning money from the company is legal in the U.S., it's certainly not here. Probably because then you can fairly easily create a tax evasion scheme where you never pay yourself a salary and just keep borrowing money at zero interest and payment due long about five years after the sun explodes...

I don’t know where “here” is, but in the U.K. it’s perfectly legal. You can even give yourself (as a director) an interest free loan.

However if the amount owed is greater than ~£10k(?) at the end of the corporate tax year, you need to pay it back within 9 months or it’s treated as income and taxed accordingly (there’s also regulations about paying it off before the end of the corporate tax year and taking out directly after). Still 21 months for an interest free loan isn’t bad...

> Probably because then you can fairly easily create a tax evasion scheme where you never pay yourself a salary and just keep borrowing money at zero interest and payment due long about five years after the sun explodes...

It's legal here in the US, but there are rules around minimum interest charges. I dealt with this during a partner buyout - the payment schedule HAD to have interest involved or else it was considered a fishy loan.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7872

I wonder what "here" is, in Canada, generally, when you borrow funds from your company and don't repay it within one year, the CRA can assess the outstanding balance as ordinary income at an income tax rate similar to that of a salary.

Where do you live? This is pretty much legal wherever, as long as you pay market rate interest rates on said loan.

Pedantic nit: the FedEx story involved a punt on blackjack, which at least involves some skill and where you can eke out a thin theoretical edge against the house if you count cards, not on black as in roulette.

I believe the on black story was another company, not FedEx.

More like betting it all on a single number. Black has a nearly 50% chance of paying off for you; this cryptocoin gamble is way worse than those odds.

You're better off opening a casino than betting it on Black.

> betting it all on black.

At the blackjack table.

Exactly. For them, to team up with WENN on this was insane.

Kodak is a zombie.

As someone who grew up in the shadow of what once was the "Big Yellow Box" I cannot emphasize this enough -- Kodak has very little still going for it and has shrunk greatly. At this point it's probably worth the gamble to them, as that's how dire things are.

To give a few numbers...

At their peak in 1988 they employed 188,000 people, with over 60,000 of those in the Rochester, NY area.

Today they employ fewer than 6,000, with only about 1300 in Rochester.

6,000.. Wow! I seriously assumed just a couple of administrators

Kodak is just a brand that they essentially lease out. The various CEO's all shed any businesses that resembled something profitable in attempts to, well I don't know, help shareholders.

Another imaging company where Kodak has its HQ is going through a similar but slower downturn. You could say they are ... copying them (sorry). I think when a lot of the baby boomers finally retire from the workforce, office printing will drop off a cliff as far as usage goes.

Off topic, but I print research papers at work and always feel guilty about it because signs on the printers admonish you to think green... I can't properly read/think about papers otherwise.

>>Minority ownership in a random company owned by a former fraudster and 3% of the tokens with their own name on it? So many things wrong with this.

The article doesn't say he's a former fraudster. It's irresponsible to throw these kinds of accusations around without solid evidence.

> For a multi-decade, legacy brand to entrust that guy with their future is rather bizarre.

Could it be that you've been playing by different rules? Maybe Kodak was always like this. Who knows.

Sure, that is always the case. But the historical process of a board choosing a CEO has no comparison to an external figure running their strategy in a new, largely unregulated, wild wild west industry.