. Is there a requirement in England for public exposure?
This is wrong on many levels. Kodak was the pioneer of digital tech. They invented the digital camera in the 70s, and the first wave of digital SLRs had Kodak-made sensors.
The reality was that there's nothing the Kodak management could do. Absolutely nothing. You are forgetting how huge Kodak was at their peak: over $200 billion (!) in annual revenue (adjusted for inflation), which is about as much as Microsoft made in 2024. And Microsoft is a $3.9 trillion (!) company.
The imaging market today, all of it, cannot support a company of such size.
What they did is similar to what Fujifilm did - mostly got out of imaging and diversified into completely different fields, but unlike Fujifilm they ended up splitting into smaller companies. The healthiest part of former Kodak is Eastman Chemical today (EMN) which is worth $8 billion, followed by Carestream Health which is private but doing over $1.5B a year in revenue. Eastman Kodak is microscopic in comparison, with total enterprise value of less than half a billion.
TLDR: Kodak management wasn't nearly as incompetent as most people think, and the most successful survived parts of their business simply aren't as known because they no longer use the brand.
Some people say that Kodak management squandered its early lead in digital and threw away its chance to dominate that market. Xerox PARC pioneered the graphical user interface. But Xerox upper management failed to appreciate its potential. Apple and Microsoft made billions with it instead.
Some people say that Kodak management squandered its early lead in digital and threw away its chance to dominate that market. Xerox PARC pioneered the graphical user interface. But Xerox upper management failed to appreciate its potential. Apple and Microsoft made billions with it instead.
Yes, precisely.In the end, the era of digital cameras was very short. A blip in Kodak's history.
Fun fact for any non-Unix users on this thread. The Unix/Linux graphics system is called "X", named after Xerox.
I don't think this is true? I believe X was chosen as a name at MIT because Stanford had a windowing system named W. So X was logically the next big thing.
Well, maybe MACO will acquire the rights to the Kodak film brands. Then they can sell Tri-X under five different names with different box speeds.
Yeah, digital "camera shipments dropped 94% between 2010 and 2023."In the end, the era of digital cameras was very short. A blip in Kodak's history.
There's something I don't understand about the fall of the old Kodak. People say that Kodak's not playing a bigger role in the digital photography market was not due to management's failure to anticipate the growth in digital sales. People say that Kodak viewed digital as a small market that didn't use consumables, so it wasn't worth it for them to get into it. Based upon this, it seems Kodak management foresaw the growth in digital and thus must have anticipated the decline of analog sales.
It is said over and over that the rise of digital photography was pretty much the sole cause of Kodak's collapse. But if Kodak was such a huge company that film was just one part of the business, and if they knew film sales would decline, why didn't they just offload the film division and carry on with the other divisions?
Most of Kodak's employees - Eastman Kodak and its international subsidiaries - were engaged in distribution and marketing of relatively high margin products.
Photographic film, printing industry film products, X-Ray and microfilm, big expensive ($100,000.00+) photocopiers and chemicals.
Plus a bunch of lines like commercial AV.
Chemical manufacturing was based on the photo-chemical world, but arguably could have been re-purposed effectively. But instead of being re-structured, it was sold off and became Eastman Chemical.
After several very tough years, Eastman Chemical became very successful on its own.
All the rest were massively affected by changes in the marketplace - photography, commercial printing, X-Ray, AV, even photocopiers.
And when those markets changed, Eastman Kodak and its subsidiaries were left with a large and expensive employee base, trying to chase a dwindling market.
Yeah, digital "camera shipments dropped 94% between 2010 and 2023."
One could say that phones are technically digital cameras. But they seem different enough from standalone cameras to be considered a different animal.
But the instant photography market has been growing and generates considerable revenue for Fuji. This is presumably partly because it is more consumable-based.
Digital camera makers tried to make their products more consumable by constantly promoting new designs with more megapixels and features. But for some users, the need for new designs has plateaued, and they don't feel they need tons more megapixels.
Cell phone manufacturers do similar things to convince consumers that they frequently need to replace their phones. They have been pretty successful with this. But this may plateau as well, and people feel their current phones are capable enough. This is where software comes to the rescue. Eventually, the older phones get to where they cannot support the latest software, even though they are otherwise perfectly functional.
https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-camera-industry-in-one-chart/
Was it? I think it relied to a very large extent on consumables associated specifically with analog photography. Today's it's different of course.But if Kodak was such a huge company that film was just one part of the business,
Cellphones aren't technically cameras, they are. Especially when compared to P&S cameras that many of these people would use otherwise. Aftre all, billions of people shoot bilions of pictures daily. Many are people who wouldn't have a separate camera if not for cellphones.
Digital camera makers tried to make their products more consumable by constantly promoting new designs with more megapixels and features. But for some users, the need for new designs has plateaued, and they don't feel they need tons more megapixels.
Yeah. Within the digital photography industry, my camera is considered lackluster --- it is a micro four thirds camera (M43) --- but I swear I have never felt remotely limited by its megapixel count. I like M43 because it's so portable (smaller lenses); my camera is water-proof and has amazing stabilization. But all this has also plateaued. My camera is two versions old, and while I am glad that there are new revisions coming out every few years, they don't yet have enough features to make me go out and actually buy a new version.
I did change my habits, I now avoid product like film that say "made in USA" I am Guessing that I will Have to Buy the ADOX version of HC-110, even if it costs more than the stuff from Michigan.. the grocery stores around here are pushing Canadian and then Mexican Produce.Tariffs
I'm trying to not let this stuff change my habits. I am extremely fond of imports
The Kodak Photocopiers were Impressive monsters, using a loop of 15 innh wide polyester film. ( with a photocathode coating ) they sold that business many decades ago. one place I worded had a couple of them and two Kodak "techs" would clean and adjust then while attempting to keep toner off the gray business suit that they were expected to wear by Kodak Policy.big expensive ($100,000.00+) photocopiers and chemicals.
Plus a bunch of lines like commercial AV.
Fun fact for any non-Unix users on this thread. The Unix/Linux graphics system is called "X", named after Xerox.
Fun fact for any non-Unix users on this thread. The Unix/Linux graphics system is called "X", named after Xerox.
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?