Kodak news

Started Jun 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,601
Re: Kodak news
In reply to SW Anderson, Jun 30, 2013

SW Anderson wrote:

oldshutterbug wrote:

". . . I bet if Kodak had the chance to go backwards in time they would have kept digital photography to themselves.

Be who you are, say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Generally, in this high-tech age, that doesn't work for a company. If EK could come up with digital cameras, you can bet other companies willing to do the R&D, plus jump through enough hoops to remain free of patent infringement lawsuits, could develop them as well. Maybe develop better ones.

In late 2007, I was given a third-generation iPod. It cost the better part of $200. Within two years a slew of mp3 players was available. The sound on virtually all of those was as good as the more expensive iPod's and some included additional features at a lower price. While Apple continued to bring out new iPod models, the company realized the mini music player was fast becoming a commodity item with diminishing profit potential. So, Apple concentrated on updating and upgrading its very proprietary computers and developing the iPad. That turned out to be a winning strategy.

I'm going to crawl out on a limb and speculate that EK's mistake was continuing large-scale production of film, photographic paper and chemicals longer than it should have. EK might have continued offering all that stuff for too long in part out of sheer institutional inertia and partly because the company felt a sense of responsibility to the hundreds of thousands of businesses worldwide that depended on its products. Also, EK decision makers probably underestimated how rapidly mass-market consumers would embrace digital photography.

I have an additional pet theory as to why EK wound up in bankruptcy. I think the company erred in producing way too many low-end, me-too point 'n' shoot models; in failing to maintain a coherent, consistent offering of high-end cameras for pro's and advanced amateurs; and in dabbling in dye-sub printers all too briefly and then leaving buyers of those printers in the lurch while it pursued profits in the horrendously competitive inkjet arena.

That's my (much more than) 2 cents' worth, anyway.

Sorry but I cant agree on all the points made by this contributor, Photography is a different kettle of fish compared to an iPod.

We must remember that Polaroid had their instant film camera patent tied up so tight that when Kodak copied it and introduced their own version of the instant film camera they ended up in court.

Kodak lost the case and had to stop producing instant film for those cameras, owners were given the choice of taking their camera to a drug/chemist store and swapping it for any other Kodak camera including the Disc types or a bundle of Kodak film.

What is to say that if Kodak had patented the digital camera in such a way that they could have done what Polaroid did, after all they learned the hard way.

-- hide signature --

Be who you are, say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow