Kodak never had the "Steve Jobs" they needed--a visionary who could transition their strengths and *create* new markets. When Jobs returned to the ailing Apple he moved Apple from a computer company to a technology company. Kodak was in a very tough position, but they could have made a similar transition instead of moving into other established markets.
Which computer did he invent?
tomalophicon - Back in the 80's or 90's maybe Kodak needed to sell Canon and Nikon their ability to make a better sensor? I believe they invented the amazing sensor tech (plus tons of patents that Apple, et al are all looking to buy), Kodak just couldnt sell it and thus the IBM syndrome (i.e. IBM and the PC of the 80's lost to Dell, etc)
Which in hindsight was a massive mistake. Sure, there might be prestige in supplying the high end of town, but what of the DSLR boom? For every 1 'bald or Leica digi sensor sold, there is probably thousands of DSLR's sold (figures plucked off the top of my head).
If they had a DSLR that could be sold to suit popular mounts, they needed to market it properly, which in reality, they didn't.
As others have said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw a Kodak commercial running on TV or on billboards and bus shelters. Canon, Nikon, Sony still use these mediums to promote the photographic wares - Heck, even Sigma run TV commercials for their lenses. Kodak doesn't need a management guru, they need a marketing guru.
They had their hand in the dSLR market, it didn't do too well.
But who knew about it?
you forgot
dell won because they had prison labor do all their work for them
if kodak just offshored everything, kept nothing in the states
maybe they could have one too ...
But who knew about it?
Nikon. The first digital sensor was adapted to a Nikon body.
Kodak was always in the loop, in the driver's seat in fact. They suffered from "next quarter" syndrome while Japanese companies took long term perspectives and management and are still solvent and profitable.
But who knew about it?
Can you elaborate more re this? I dont follow?
John I don't agree here, Dell, Cisco, Sun and other PC/server makers won the PC race of the 80's because IBM didn't move fast, they were focused on the mainframe for too long (allegory to Kodak and film) when the server/PC infrastructure was becoming the norm (eg Dell, HP, Acer and Cisco and Sun for the servers) so IBM did not transform fas enough and that is the story of IBM. Recently they sold off all their hardware to Lenovo and became one of the best consulting companies around, they got out and eventually rebounded. There is an amazing case study at Harvard Bus Review re IBM's failings in the 80's and their too-slow-to-respond to the server/PC revolution due to their "mainframe goggles", that I believe Kodak wore too long too but they are "film goggles". Hopefully Kodak can either divest or split out the film arm (ala like what Motorola just did Mobility and Solutions arms) and come out ahead.
The prison item you mention I believe didnt have to do with the manufacturing but the recycling program and in the late 80's when IBM dropped the ball, that program prob didnt exist anyway, my point is that Dell and others ate IBM's lunch on a technology they created/perfected (PCs) just like Kodak (digi sensors) but they relied on the past too long (film)
I believe back in the day when Dell ate IBM's lunch, Dell had all the components made in China and elsewhere but the PCs were assembled in Round Rock TX to order, ala Burger King model (have it your way), although I concede the prison labor did happen it was only with the recycle program but not really relevant here IMHO
LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER. ASK THE CUSTOMER
No, not when talking about disruptive technology. To listen on existing customers in that case is exactly one of the mistakes that those companies that has gone extinct by disruptive technology all have in common.
Hasselbad was also one of the pioneers in digital imaging (early in cooperation with SAAB space division), already at the summer olympics in Los Angeles 1984 threy presented a machine that digitally could transfer images back home to the news office. Very much like mailing pictures today. Hasslblads digital division quickly grew and really made money. And of course they where looking to the possibility of making the camera digital, they where very early. But Hassy was in its soul a mechanical company of shafts, springs and cogwheels. To think that the camera would become electronic was a bit uncomfortale, but they did see it, even anticipated it.
http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-electronic-imaging
But even then, right before the digital boom in cameras they closed down the digital division. Why? Simple, they listened on their customers. Back in 1999 the professionals using Hasselblad did not want some expensive silly toy with crappy image quality. Yes, back then digital cameras where crappy toys with a terrible image quality compared to a Hassy.
Hasselblad was very, very close to go bankrupt and close down, very close.
http://www.slideshare.net/Christian...m-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation
Another example. The large maker of mechanical calculators Facit, with offices world wide. They did see the threat coming from the electronics, they bought up electronic companies to get competence quickly, they did everything right. They even started to make large mainframe computers in the late sixities and those machines where considered to be of world class. But shortly thereafter when minicalculators actually started to make a dent in the balance sheets (only a dent initially), they took the decision to listen on their big longtime customers.. They did not want tiny minicalculators, those did not even have a paper roll.. And they ceartainly did not need a mainframe computer large as a bus and sucking power like small town. So they put all their effort into new mechanical calculators, those that their old time customers knew. A couple of years after Facit did not exist anymore.
That Cristian has a lot on the subject of Facit too, and as i linked to earlier a 368 page(slides) on Kodak where he make the case that Kodak actually did quite good since it still is around. Most things in this discussion is in those slides by Christian, he is a researcher and lectures about it.
http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/kodak-destruction
Yeah, time for Kodak to roll up their sleeves, get their fingers dirty, and work themselves back to greatness. Who knows what they can get involved with to reinvent themselves, but I think they need some fresh invention and ideas about how to bring the company forward.
I work for a company where new product introductions relating to energy efficiency is the lifeblood of our future placement in a very competitive marketplace. You have to bring out products to people that are appealing, worth their time in both features and savings, and eventually sell them an idea of getting something better. And then you have to sell a lot of them. How do you make sure that most of your new products are a success? LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER. ASK THE CUSTOMER.
Works for us since we're still growing but our competition are set back some 16% in the same time period. You have to sell a dream that people believe in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?