Summary of “Inside the Facility Where Kodak Brings Film Back to Life”

The elevators in Building 30, where Kodak blends film chemicals, help workers’ eyes get used to the conditions that light-sensitive compounds demand.
Learning to work with the fussy animal-derived material is what spurred Kodak founder George Eastman to create the film giant’s research arm in the late 1800s.
The 52-inch-wide film rolls pass through a coating waterfall, a cooler, and a dryer.
Kodak paints the airtight containers flat black on the inside, and seals them with collars to ensure no light can seep in and prematurely expose the film.
This device, which Kodak calls “The heart,” punches holes in the edges of the film so sprockets inside a camera can crank through exposures.
During production, Kodak uses night-vision cameras to monitor the film for irregularities such as uneven application or breaks.
The final film goes on to the packaging area, where a machine wraps it around plastic spools like these.
The machine at left funnels empty metal film cans via conveyor belt toward the last packaging step-inserting rolls into their canisters.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Inside the Facility Where Kodak Brings Film Back to Life”

The elevators in Building 30, where Kodak blends film chemicals, help workers’ eyes get used to the conditions that light-sensitive compounds demand.
Learning to work with the fussy animal-derived material is what spurred Kodak founder George Eastman to create the film giant’s research arm in the late 1800s.
The 52-inch-wide film rolls pass through a coating waterfall, a cooler, and a dryer.
Kodak paints the airtight containers flat black on the inside, and seals them with collars to ensure no light can seep in and prematurely expose the film.
This device, which Kodak calls “The heart,” punches holes in the edges of the film so sprockets inside a camera can crank through exposures.
During production, Kodak uses night-vision cameras to monitor the film for irregularities such as uneven application or breaks.
The final film goes on to the packaging area, where a machine wraps it around plastic spools like these.
The machine at left funnels empty metal film cans via conveyor belt toward the last packaging step-inserting rolls into their canisters.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Kodak Died and Fujifilm Thrived: A Tale of Two Film Companies”

Even though Kodak and Fujifilm produced cameras, their core business was centered on film and post-processing sales.
According to Forbes, Kodak “Gladly gave away cameras in exchange for getting people hooked on paying to have their photos developed – yielding Kodak a nice annuity in the form of 80% of the market for the chemicals and paper used to develop and print those photos.”
In 2000, just before the digital transition, sales related to film accounted for 72% of Kodak revenue and 66% of its operating income against 60% and 66% for Fujifilm.
Willy Shih, former vice president of Kodak also confirms that “Color film was an extremely complex product to manufacture.” The film roll “Had to be coated with as many as 24 layers of sophisticated chemicals: photosensitizers, dyes, couplers, and other materials deposited at precise thicknesses while traveling at 300 feet per minute. Wide rolls had to be changed over and spliced continuously in real time; the coated film had to be cut to size and packaged, all in the dark.”
“With film, the entry barriers were high. Only two competitors, Fujifilm and Agfa-Gevaert, had enough expertise and production scale to challenge Kodak seriously,” Shih said.
Why? Because all of a sudden, Kodak and Fujifilm were forced to leave their quasi-duopoly and compete against dozens of companies in the low margin business of digital cameras.
Retrospectively, Mr. Shih, the former VP of Kodak thinks that the company “Could have tried to compete on capabilities rather than on the markets it was in” like Fujifilm did but “This would have meant walking away from a great consumer franchise. That’s not the logic that managers learn at business schools, and it would have been a hard pill for Kodak leaders to swallow.”
Some say Kodak made the mistake that George Eastman, its founder, avoided twice before, when he gave up a profitable dry-plate business to move to film and when he invested in color film even though it was demonstrably inferior to black and white film.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Kodak announces its own cryptocurrency and watches stock price skyrocket”

There’s a growing list of companies that have added language about blockchain or cryptocurrency into their names and mission statements, and it makes sense.
The latest company to jump on this trend is, unexpectedly, Kodak, which just launched its own KodakCoin, a cryptocurrency for photographers.
As soon as the news was announced, Kodak’s stock jumped up, and as of this writing, its stock price is $5.02, a 60 percent gain.
The platform will supposedly create a digital ledger of rights ownership that photographers can use to register and license new and old work.
Both the platform and cryptocurrency are supposed to “Empower photographers and agencies to take greater control in image rights management,” according to the press release.
The digital currency is meant to create a new economy for photographers to receive payment and sell work on a secure platform.
Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke said in a press statement, “For many in the tech industry, ‘blockchain’ and ‘cryptocurrency’ are hot buzzwords, but for photographers who’ve long struggled to assert control over their work and how it’s used, these buzzwords are the keys to solving what felt like an unsolvable problem.”
While Kodak’s proposed blockchain-powered platform and virtual coin sound good on paper, it’s not clear why the photography company needs to use blockchain to achieve its goals, rather than just create another social media platform instead. It appears that Kodak, like the other tea and vape companies that received media attention last month for making the abrupt leap to blockchain, could just be trying to capitalize on the current cryptocurrency mania.

The orginal article.

Summary of “To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider the Janitors at Two Top Companies, Then and Now”

The 10 most valuable tech companies have 1.5 million employees, according to calculations by Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute, compared with 2.2 million employed by the 10 biggest industrial companies in 1979.
Major companies have also chosen to bifurcate their work force, contracting out much of the labor that goes into their products to other companies, which compete by lowering costs.
The company estimates 1.5 million people work in the “App economy,” building and maintaining the mobile applications used on Apple products.
Pay for janitors fell by 4 to 7 percent, and for security guards by 8 to 24 percent, in American companies that outsourced, Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University found in a 2010 paper.
J. Adam Cobb of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Ken-Hou Lin at the University of Texas found that the drop in big companies’ practice of paying relatively high wages to their low- and mid-level workers could have accounted for 20 percent of the wage inequality increase from 1989 to 2014.The same forces that explain the difference between 1980s Kodak and today’s Apple have big implications not just for every blue-collar employee who punches a timecard, but also for white-collar professionals who swipe a badge.
Companies should outsource work when the need for staff is lumpy, such as for software companies that may need dozens of quality-assurance testers ahead of a major release but not once the product is out.
Firms in the United States are legally required to offer the same health insurance options and 401(k) match to all employees – meaning if those programs are made extra generous to attract top engineers, a company that doesn’t outsource will have to pay them for everyone.
“But they consider themselves a global company, not necessarily a Cupertino company.” She said she has never met Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive.

The orginal article.