So what exactly should Kodak have done?
-
A
- Thread starter Prof_Pixel
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sinar P2 8x10 Metering Back & Bellows
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
Sold Minolta 7000 (Refurbished) w/ 50mm f/1.7
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale FS: RARE Nikkormat FS body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Sold GONE!...FREE for Shipping Cost: Polaroid 110 Pathfinder Camera Body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
What could they have done? Easy: they should have pulled a Fujifilm.
what about being the digital forerunner instead of "late to the market" like the article says. people were still printing a lot of photos at least until 2000 or so. At least I know my wife was, though she had switched to a digital camera. Digital upload and printing services? Could have transitioned into a having a strong web presence like Flickr or better yet Instagram? Kodak had a lot of money to play with early on and access to a lot of smart people.
That's not an easy question, been aware how the market was changing but early on whe digital became more invasive they were still literally printing money with every film sold.
They had and sold two different high end DSLR's one Canon based, the other Nikon, when they dropped them that signaled an end. Extremely poor management, no idea of direction, milking the cash reserves to give themselves huge bonuses as the company lost money.Outside the US that's fraud, in the US it's enterprise.
Ian
They had and sold two different high end DSLR's one Canon based, the other Nikon, when they dropped them that signaled an end. Extremely poor management, no idea of direction, milking the cash reserves to give themselves huge bonuses as the company lost money.Outside the US that's fraud, in the US it's enterprise.
Ian
I'd like to read a longer form version of that article. It was just reaching it's stride when it ended.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Invent a time machine. Go back in time. Remake the decisions. Return to present. Easy peasy.
You might also find this interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/22/john-naughton-kodak-lessons
If they had accepted that the Easy days of High Film profits were over, they would have perhaps been slightly more focused.
The article metions Stirling Drug for example. With Kodak's Chemical expertise they proably could have cut production costs and made thet Hyper profitable. Instead they dumped it at a loss after a year or two as it was not profitable enough.
They allowed others to grab key technologies, like Texas Instruments and their DL Cine Projectors. If Kodak had seen that digital projection was enevitable, they could have had that market, and been still "in the projector gate" in every theater.
They also did the scale down of Film production exactly wrong. Toronto, France the UK all had flexible plants that were built to make relatively small quantities of many Kodak film products. I recall that right after NAFTA Toronto was making almost all of the movie Negative as consumer film shfted to other plants. That tells me that if that plant was cabable of making such a sufisticated product, and the staff were used to service a market of 20 million people, that it might have been a better choice to upgrade that as a flex manufacturing site.
SO many product lines like X-ray and Microfilm and scanners were spun off and are now supplied by other people factories. (even with the Kodak Name still attached in some cases).
The article metions Stirling Drug for example. With Kodak's Chemical expertise they proably could have cut production costs and made thet Hyper profitable. Instead they dumped it at a loss after a year or two as it was not profitable enough.
They allowed others to grab key technologies, like Texas Instruments and their DL Cine Projectors. If Kodak had seen that digital projection was enevitable, they could have had that market, and been still "in the projector gate" in every theater.
They also did the scale down of Film production exactly wrong. Toronto, France the UK all had flexible plants that were built to make relatively small quantities of many Kodak film products. I recall that right after NAFTA Toronto was making almost all of the movie Negative as consumer film shfted to other plants. That tells me that if that plant was cabable of making such a sufisticated product, and the staff were used to service a market of 20 million people, that it might have been a better choice to upgrade that as a flex manufacturing site.
SO many product lines like X-ray and Microfilm and scanners were spun off and are now supplied by other people factories. (even with the Kodak Name still attached in some cases).
Well, APUG ate my last post.
Fred, I watched Kodak spend a lot of money on projects that failed, such as the Verbatim / Drivetek high capacity floppy drive and the purchase of a failing and floundering Wang computers. I also watched MAC fail from use of the wrong hardware, and the wide fast coaters? Don't get me started on this.
It was the era of the managers "who could do no wrong" I guess. Nothing could stop some of these projects until they had bled the company of a lot of money.
And yet, they could have become a great mover and shaker in the digital world, as they held most of the best digital sensor patents.
PE
Fred, I watched Kodak spend a lot of money on projects that failed, such as the Verbatim / Drivetek high capacity floppy drive and the purchase of a failing and floundering Wang computers. I also watched MAC fail from use of the wrong hardware, and the wide fast coaters? Don't get me started on this.
It was the era of the managers "who could do no wrong" I guess. Nothing could stop some of these projects until they had bled the company of a lot of money.
And yet, they could have become a great mover and shaker in the digital world, as they held most of the best digital sensor patents.
PE
They should found another the division with a name quite different from Kodak and push digital photography. The name Kodak won't sell digital cameras as people think if you make great films you simply can't make good digital cameras.
The article constrains Kodak in the photographic market to consumer products. As this was not the case any such critical evaluation lacks its base.
Furthermore a comparison to Kodak's competitors is lacking.
Basically Kodak within the digital crisis focused on consumer products, giving up on most other ranges, whereas one of their major competitors just did the opposite. And, with setbacks, now seems better of. But as Kodak was at the verge of collapse for a while.
Thus picking just one player and bashing him is a bit simple.
Furthermore a comparison to Kodak's competitors is lacking.
Basically Kodak within the digital crisis focused on consumer products, giving up on most other ranges, whereas one of their major competitors just did the opposite. And, with setbacks, now seems better of. But as Kodak was at the verge of collapse for a while.
Thus picking just one player and bashing him is a bit simple.
That's not true. Fuji makes great films and very innovative digital cameras. I think the difference with Fuji though is that continued making professional-level film cameras until recently, so they already had the technology in place to make cameras when digital came about. Kodak quit making high-end cameras decades ago and didn't have the ability to make pro-level cameras when digital came about. That's why they used Canon and Nikon film bodies as a basis for their digital cameras, which made cumbersome, large, expensive cameras compared to the digital cameras that Canon, Nikon, and Fuji began making themselves.
Kodak lost a monopoly law suit that forced it to sell off the Graflex and Graphic divisions of the company and was not allowed to make high quality and professional cameras.
And XTOL ...
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
...and TMY-2!
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 181
- Format
- 35mm
Kodak still makes film and that's 15 years or so after digital took over and that's unbelievable. We are living in a best case scenario, i really see little to nothing that kodak could of done to prevent the transition to digital. It's the transition to digital that killed kodak, sure we blame poor management, and lack of investment in new tech and blah blah blah but there is little to no reason for any one other than an enthusiast to shoot film. Is that harsh? Yes it is and i say this as a person who owns 6 film cameras, still shoots film every week, and checks for film ferania updates daily.
Why didm't Fuji go bankrupt?
Last edited by a moderator:
MattKing
Moderator
Kodak continued to employ large numbers of experienced, trained and well paid people for a long time.
In the current world, that is inconsistent with a high stock price, so therefore it is bad.
In the current world, that is inconsistent with a high stock price, so therefore it is bad.
Same answer I've posted before.
As the inventor of digital technology and holder of many patents for it, Kodak should have continued to aggressively develop it, patenting every minute aspect and improvement along the way. And then kept it completely off the market. The cash cow of film -- lots of Gold consumer film and Eastman motion picture film -- could have been milked for quite a few more decades at levels that would have made Bldg. 38's line barely adequate. All the while, using but a small portion of current revenue, keeping the most advanced digital R&D program going to stay ahead of any other entities that might try to bring the film-killing technology to market.
That's what Kodak should have done.
Kodak crashed and burned because they made a knowing decision early on NOT to defend their world-class, world-leading technologies. That included both film and digital. It's as simple as that, really.
When it came to film technology, like it or not, Kodak was in total control. They were the 800-pound gorilla that dominated the field. They had the most money, the best researchers, the best products, the biggest market, and the adoration of generations of loyal customers. Everyone else was just simply trying to keep up.
To those who claim Kodak could not keep up with digital imaging technology, they miss the fact that Kodak invented it. And because they invented it there was a point in time at the beginning where by definition they controlled it completely and were ahead of everyone else, bar none.
But somewhere along the line the decision makers at Kodak were served up and swallowed the infamous "easy digital billions" Kool-Aid. They came to believe that only by instantly and completely abandoning their century-plus of world-class emulsion and coating expertise and products could they lay their hands on those elusive digital billions. And in trying to do so they threw it all away.
In the person of their new CEO they ended up working harder to stop film than they did to start anything else. In building their bridge across the river to the promised land, for every new digital plank they laid down in front, they pulled up two analog planks from behind. Inevitably those dual trend lines crossed leaving them stuck mid-river without a viable path in either direction.
What could they have done differently?
Defended their top-of-the-line film imaging technology (see Sal's post above), marketing it as the higher quality option for discriminating photographers, while they concurrently worked to improve and control their newer digital imaging technology (again, see Sal above) and carefully blended it into their analog product lines as more appropriate for the birthday candles crowd.
Successful companies make their own markets. Kodak was more than big enough, rich enough, and bad-ass enough to have controlled the direction that the new technology would take. They were already doing that with film. There was nothing stopping them from doing it with digital. Except thoughtful foresight.
My dream for Kodak (listen up, all you who think I'm anti-Kodak...) was to be the biggest and baddest imaging company on the planet—which would only have been an extension of what they already were with film. To have a beautifully maintained and comprehensive portfolio of correctly marketed, highly supported, continually improved, and perfectly price-point positioned film and digital imaging product lines for both professionals and consumers.
But instead they drank the Kool-Aid and ended up all trying to crowd onto that last remaining plank in the middle of a raging river, seemingly clueless about how they got there, and constantly pointing fingers at everyone and everything else for their predicament, while the managers with the biggest bonuses spent their time throwing all of the lesser stakeholders into the icy waters below.
I am still so mad at those guys I could spit...
Ken
When it came to film technology, like it or not, Kodak was in total control. They were the 800-pound gorilla that dominated the field. They had the most money, the best researchers, the best products, the biggest market, and the adoration of generations of loyal customers. Everyone else was just simply trying to keep up.
To those who claim Kodak could not keep up with digital imaging technology, they miss the fact that Kodak invented it. And because they invented it there was a point in time at the beginning where by definition they controlled it completely and were ahead of everyone else, bar none.
But somewhere along the line the decision makers at Kodak were served up and swallowed the infamous "easy digital billions" Kool-Aid. They came to believe that only by instantly and completely abandoning their century-plus of world-class emulsion and coating expertise and products could they lay their hands on those elusive digital billions. And in trying to do so they threw it all away.
In the person of their new CEO they ended up working harder to stop film than they did to start anything else. In building their bridge across the river to the promised land, for every new digital plank they laid down in front, they pulled up two analog planks from behind. Inevitably those dual trend lines crossed leaving them stuck mid-river without a viable path in either direction.
What could they have done differently?
Defended their top-of-the-line film imaging technology (see Sal's post above), marketing it as the higher quality option for discriminating photographers, while they concurrently worked to improve and control their newer digital imaging technology (again, see Sal above) and carefully blended it into their analog product lines as more appropriate for the birthday candles crowd.
Successful companies make their own markets. Kodak was more than big enough, rich enough, and bad-ass enough to have controlled the direction that the new technology would take. They were already doing that with film. There was nothing stopping them from doing it with digital. Except thoughtful foresight.
My dream for Kodak (listen up, all you who think I'm anti-Kodak...) was to be the biggest and baddest imaging company on the planet—which would only have been an extension of what they already were with film. To have a beautifully maintained and comprehensive portfolio of correctly marketed, highly supported, continually improved, and perfectly price-point positioned film and digital imaging product lines for both professionals and consumers.
But instead they drank the Kool-Aid and ended up all trying to crowd onto that last remaining plank in the middle of a raging river, seemingly clueless about how they got there, and constantly pointing fingers at everyone and everything else for their predicament, while the managers with the biggest bonuses spent their time throwing all of the lesser stakeholders into the icy waters below.
I am still so mad at those guys I could spit...
Ken
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,406
- Format
- Medium Format
They still brought some innovations though. Ektar and the New 160 and 400 Portras, which were a major improvement. However I don´t think this can compensate the complete abandonment of all slide films and B/W papers...
Kodak was big then Mr Eastman died.
They never found a replacement.
Mr Eastman bought out competitors. His successors tried ignoring patents
Edison number one in patents
Land two
? three
They paid Land near 1000 million USD, bought back cameras, etc.,
They allowed Fuji green boxes into every pharmacy.
By '76 as quoted by the Guardian they were on a steep downward slide.
Then in '03 they anticipated a golden sunset and got a digital switch off instead, so their prodigious R&D expenditure was not covered by predicted income.
Total management incompetence.
Fuji only did a little better digital cameras are suffering from iPhones and Androids.
Now Mr Jobs is not at the helm how well will Apple do?
They never found a replacement.
Mr Eastman bought out competitors. His successors tried ignoring patents
Edison number one in patents
Land two
? three
They paid Land near 1000 million USD, bought back cameras, etc.,
They allowed Fuji green boxes into every pharmacy.
By '76 as quoted by the Guardian they were on a steep downward slide.
Then in '03 they anticipated a golden sunset and got a digital switch off instead, so their prodigious R&D expenditure was not covered by predicted income.
Total management incompetence.
Fuji only did a little better digital cameras are suffering from iPhones and Androids.
Now Mr Jobs is not at the helm how well will Apple do?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
IDK about that ... for 80-90 years kodak made cameras
they democratized photography with the first consumer grade cameras
and then then invented the D-thing which was the next step.
one theory i have heard is once they stopped processing the film they made
it was the beginning of the end.
Even if Kodak had done things perfectly, it is hard to say where they would be right now given how much things have changed in photography in general, digital or analog. There are trends that can be lead by the photo world and there are much larger social shifts that cast a larger shadow of need for change.
Had they kept the lead in the charge for digital long enough to amass Apple-like market cap, they very well could have sank a couple hundred million into down-sizing their film coating line from scratch into a state of the art, highly scalable and diversified operation that would be the envy of the film & paper coating world. Wiith the ability to maintain a high degree of quality and profit margin regardless of demand for analog products, that to me would have been the perfect outcome.
But we are here now, with film having fallen some 95% over it's glory days in the 90's, prices continuing to rise, corporate shifts by the likes of stalwart Ilford Harman showing me that nothing is on as solid a footing as any of us would like.
At least digital in it's most commonly known form has matured and the hype has largely worn off so people are loving using film again to the degree that they feel satisfied in it. Just this morning while dropping my car off for some maintenance, I had a nice young woman take notice of my Leica M6. Long story short is that she recently found a Pentax K1000 in a thrift store for $15 and started putting film through it. Her comment regarding the photos she gets was "I just love the look of the photos, so fun, so easy and just rich with depth and mood".
Kodak still to this day makes some of the best film ever, I use a fair bit of it in my work. But for how long and for how much...man...who knows at this point.
Hindsight is a pair of Summicrons pointed rearward now isn't it...
Had they kept the lead in the charge for digital long enough to amass Apple-like market cap, they very well could have sank a couple hundred million into down-sizing their film coating line from scratch into a state of the art, highly scalable and diversified operation that would be the envy of the film & paper coating world. Wiith the ability to maintain a high degree of quality and profit margin regardless of demand for analog products, that to me would have been the perfect outcome.
But we are here now, with film having fallen some 95% over it's glory days in the 90's, prices continuing to rise, corporate shifts by the likes of stalwart Ilford Harman showing me that nothing is on as solid a footing as any of us would like.
At least digital in it's most commonly known form has matured and the hype has largely worn off so people are loving using film again to the degree that they feel satisfied in it. Just this morning while dropping my car off for some maintenance, I had a nice young woman take notice of my Leica M6. Long story short is that she recently found a Pentax K1000 in a thrift store for $15 and started putting film through it. Her comment regarding the photos she gets was "I just love the look of the photos, so fun, so easy and just rich with depth and mood".
Kodak still to this day makes some of the best film ever, I use a fair bit of it in my work. But for how long and for how much...man...who knows at this point.
Hindsight is a pair of Summicrons pointed rearward now isn't it...
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |