

Kodak: Gone in a flash  - bootload
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/kodak-files-bankruptcy-protection-1

======
ShabbyDoo
I'm glad this obituary pointed out that Kodak's demise fits a common pattern
among successful behemoths -- failing to react to disruptive technologies. It
must have been easy for Kodak to ignore digital photography at first when
professional photographers, its core customer base, derided the first digital
cameras as inferior toys. I am yet again reminded of an essay Dan Bricklin
wrote (I couldn't find a link, anyone?) where he noted on a train how mobile
phone users gladly traded the fidelity of landlines (dropped calls) for
convenience (speaking while riding) -- a rational trade-off which cost AT&T
dearly. Digital photography didn't produce better photos than film for quite
awhile, but it offered up advantages which professional photographers probably
didn't care much about: convenience, lower skill level (due to instant
review), etc. And, of course, the rest is now history.

~~~
flomo
Digital photography is one of those things where terms like "disruptive"
grossly understates the reality. (More like "destroyer".) 35MM film cost $5 a
roll and prints were $10 to $50 a roll (including the bad ones). Meanwhile,
digital photography was free to shoot, and a couple bucks to print per (if you
cared). I can't think of any scenario where a company would give up on that
magnitude of revenue for some small percentage of IP licensing on the "next
big thing".

It's easy to attack Kodak in the abstract sense, but I have yet to see an
analysis that shows a clear path out of this conundrum. If anything, I'm
sympathetic to the arguments that Kodak did not support professional film
markets longer than they did.

~~~
yohui
As icegreentea noted elsewhere in the comments, The Economist recently
compared Kodak to Fujifilm, which has done rather better at transitioning from
film.

<http://www.economist.com/node/21542796>

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-
fujifi...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-
survived)

~~~
flomo
It should be noted that Fuji was more on the $5 film roll side and less on the
$30 processing, so they had less to lose. Kodak supplied chemicals and paper
to the entire industry.

------
Hyena
It's worth noting that Kodak was a leader in digital cameras even in the
1980s. It's also worth considering the impact of vertical integration:
companies like Samsung and LG also make phones, giving their own CCD makers a
boost. In order for Kodak to survive, it would need to be a vastly trimmed
down CCD maker or expand into the mobile phone market. That is, there was
simply little way for Kodak to remain viable as an independent company.

------
icegreentea
Two other nice economist articles from this week's paper edition, published
before Kodak filed.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-
fujifi...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-
survived) <http://www.economist.com/node/21542796>

Nice analysis there, and a nice contrast with Fujifilm. Makes a nice narrative
as a bonus.

