> Retailers saw Kodak starting to make noise about switching to digital, which would have (and eventually did) destroyed that very lucrative sales model - so the retailers threatened Kodak with "if you push digital, we'll drop your products" ... so rather than sacrificing the cash cow, Kodak slowed the digital roadmap to ....
I don't think that is the right narrative. All those same retailers print out pictures more now then ever. Kodak's digital products were a sub par and their competition (Especially Sony and Nixon) were destroying them in the market.
That was the narrative. That was the perception at the time, and decisions were about a predictable future (even if the prediction was wrong). The retailers may (I'll have to check) be printing more than ever, but customers are walking into the retail store _once_, not three times - and that point alone terrified retailers.
Kodak had excellent imagers in development and high-end production. They knew the imaging technology & business better than anyone. They just didn't pivot (fast!) to making that their core competency. Having literally 5 miles of chemical processing factories clouded the vision required to build highly competitive cameras.
I don't think that is the right narrative. All those same retailers print out pictures more now then ever. Kodak's digital products were a sub par and their competition (Especially Sony and Nixon) were destroying them in the market.