Reading mode: Light Dark

Polaroid x530- a total failure?

Go to last post
...was the key phrase. The "merger" (i.e., liquidation) has been going on for a while.

Do you really believe that every company with a website really exists? Do you take their press releases at face value?

OK, don't believe me. Perhaps you'll believe Phil:

[ http://www.dpreview.com/news/0110/01101201polaroidch11.asp ]
[ http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02050701polaroidsale.asp ]

But geez, what's with you guys today. Everything I say, you go "Prove it."

Google a bit more, and you'll turn up the whole story.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
...was the key phrase. The "merger" (i.e., liquidation) has been
going on for a while.

Do you really believe that every company with a website really
exists? Do you take their press releases at face value?

OK, don't believe me. Perhaps you'll believe Phil:

[ http://www.dpreview.com/news/0110/01101201polaroidch11.asp ]
[ http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02050701polaroidsale.asp ]
Click to expand...
This says nothing about liquidation.

"Polaroid intends to continue to manufacture, market and distribute its core instant imaging products and to provide customer service and support for these products. Employees are being paid in the usual manner and their medical, dental and life insurance benefits are expected to continue unchanged."

Explain to me how you interpret this as meaning "Polaroid no longer exists."

In the US Chapter 11 does not mean liquidation. By a long shot.

Wayne Larmon
 
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050316/pohc.ob10-k.html
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/4_19_sb2.htm
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N53/53pol.53n.html

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/21/kpmg_seeks_to_block_release_of_polaroid_files/
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3007726?f=archives
http://bankrupt.com/polaroid.txt

It has gone bankrupt. Its assets have been liquidated. It has gone to the great holding company in the sky. It is no longer an independent entity. It is an EX-corporation.

Of course, the assets include the very valuable brand. That, as you'll know if you'll browse through their web pages, is being stuck on everything from cheap knock-off DVD players to plastic cameras. As for the rest, as you'll see by reading the fact sheet on Yahoo, it's basically a matter of milking what remains of the market for instant "Polaroid" film.

If that's your idea of "exists," then, yeah, I guess Polaroid still exists. Hell, in that case Voigtländer still exists, even if it's just a brand name Cosina sticks on its fancier lenses and cameras.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
If you need proof that the Polaroid that exists today in not the old original Polaroid just ask an old retire about their pension.

Here is a quote

"It's such a shame, because we got killed," said Peter Bass, a 72-year-old Lexington resident who retired 13 years ago after 35 years at Polaroid. Bass, who used his $47 to take his wife out for pizza, said he's considering searching for work to make ends meet — as are many other Polaroid retirees.

The company's assets were sold in whole to One Equity Partners in august 2002. They just recently sold the company to Petters Group. This company slaps the Polaroid name on anything that will get them money. They did not produce the 530, and if you look at the Polaroid site it states that they do not support the product.

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
misha said:
Michael J. Hußmann said:
Well, it's not that bad. I noticed no problems with either
backfocusing, AWB (but see below), purple fringing, or JPEG
quality. Actually, images at 1.5 MP looked quite good, with an
effective resolution equivalent to at least a 3 MP camera.
Click to expand...
But in that case, what is the reason to pay more for this camera
than many 5 mp cameras, and put up with functionality issues? I am
not disagreeing with the choice, just trying to understand the
camera's comparative advantages.
Click to expand...
If the camera consistently produced images like those in the pbase gallery (instead of the PC Watch gallery) and it sold for $199-$249 instead of $399, I think it might have a shot at capturing an audience. At that price, I might buy one just for novelty/curiosity.

If they can't maintain consistent quality or if they try to charge too much, it seems hopeless.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Really, you should ask the creditors that were never paid. The company's assets were sold in August 2002 for just under $250 million. If you study the company you will find they were cooking the books to keep their creditors from foreclosing sooner.

What was sold to equity one was a shell called Polaroid. If they recovered then tell me how much would common stock owned in Polaroid in 2000 be worth in 2005. Tell me how many of the thousands of workers receive pensions from Polaroid.

Stock was worth 0, debt accumulated by Polaroid was paid pennies on the dollar from the asset sale to Equity One.
--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
Dominic Groß said:
Ron Parr said:
There is no question that Polaroid today is a fractured entity that
has sold its name to various people.
Click to expand...
As far as I understood his postings Wayne Larmon was questioning
just that, the term "liquidation" came up later in the discussion...
Click to expand...
Ironically, Polaroid is more whole today than it has been over much of the past few years.

The main renters of the polaroid name have bought the company.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
eshropshire said:
Really, you should ask the creditors that were never paid.
Click to expand...
If you are correct, then you have proved that there was no liquidation.
eshropshire said:
The
company's assets were sold in August 2002 for just under $250
million. If you study the company you will find they were cooking
the books to keep their creditors from foreclosing sooner.

What was sold to equity one was a shell called Polaroid. If they
recovered then tell me how much would common stock owned in
Polaroid in 2000 be worth in 2005. Tell me how many of the
thousands of workers receive pensions from Polaroid.
Click to expand...
I never said they recovered. I said they weren't liquidated.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference?
eshropshire said:
Stock was worth 0, debt accumulated by Polaroid was paid pennies on
the dollar from the asset sale to Equity One.
Click to expand...
Which proves nothing...

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Ron Parr said:
eshropshire said:
Really, you should ask the creditors that were never paid.
Click to expand...
If you are correct, then you have proved that there was no
liquidation.
Click to expand...
Ron

liquidation does not mean that everyone gets paid. Actually there is no liquidation where everone gets paid ...
Member said:
I never said they recovered. I said they weren't liquidated.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference?
Click to expand...
it seems as if you dont know what liquidation means ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
Dominic Groß said:
Ron Parr said:
There is no question that Polaroid today is a fractured entity that
has sold its name to various people.
Click to expand...
As far as I understood his postings Wayne Larmon was questioning
just that, the term "liquidation" came up later in the discussion...
Click to expand...
I was responding to Petteri claiming that "Polaroid no longer exists..." There are name only companies, like Jensen and North Gate Computer. These "companies" have no relation to the original company. In these cases, the original factories have been long since liquidated and all employees have scattered to the four winds. The once proud names are now plastered on cheap products that are manufactured to contract spec. by random factories around the world.

I was pointing out that Polaroid is not in this condition. The Polaroid factories still exist and are making Polaroid Instant cameras and film. Polaroid still exists.

Wayne Larmon
 
PalmsWestPhoto said:
Ron

liquidation does not mean that everyone gets paid. Actually there
is no liquidation where everone gets paid ...
Click to expand...
I never said or implied that liquidation meant that everybody got paid.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
I never said they recovered. I said they weren't liquidated.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference?
Click to expand...
it seems as if you dont know what liquidation means ...
Click to expand...
I know what liquidation means.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Dominic Groß said:
I can see where you disagree with Petteri now but what you describe
is what is going on with the x530... it is not made by anybody
somehow connected to the company Polaroid, instead it is made in
china and has a polaroid sticker on it.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is the same process I described. But the old Polaroid company still exists, even if it is sickly, and even if newer digi products are shelled (need a new word to describe this.)

Wayne Larmon
 
Ron Parr said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
Ron

liquidation does not mean that everyone gets paid. Actually there
is no liquidation where everone gets paid ...
Click to expand...
I never said or implied that liquidation meant that everybody got
paid.
Click to expand...
i quote your reply here
eshropshire said:
Really, you should ask the creditors that were never paid.
Click to expand...
If you are correct, then you have proved that there was no liquidation.

so what you are saying is that if the creditors where never paid it cant be liquidation which is obviously wrong ...
Member said:
I know what liquidation means.
Click to expand...
not so sure ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MJ_Photo38
  • User review User review
Definitely challenging to use
Replies
17
Views
2K
Simon Stuart
Simon Stuart
Dak on cam
DSC-H1, DSC-H5: scrap shopping
Replies
12
Views
1K
Dak on cam
Dak on cam
M
Zeiss 24 1.8 vs Sigma 30 1.4 vs Mitakon 35 0.95 : help me build a comparative review
Replies
0
Views
181
Moktarama
M
cchen2
What cameras have you used?
2
Replies
28
Views
172
DigitalMaven
D
C
[Noob Review] Canon 75-300mm "Kit Telephoto" vs. Canon 55-250mm IS STM
Replies
8
Views
4K
c.hammett
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top