Jump to content

Kodak's troubles [Merged]


viramati

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I just can't figure out how Kodak managed to p--s away their lead in digital. Bayer (of the Bayer filter pattern) was a Kodak engineer; 15 years ago if you shot Nikon or Canon lenses digitally, you did it on a Kodak-modified, Kodak-marketed body; Kodak had digital backs for Hassy, Contax 645 et al. Not to mention what was at one point the best-selling line of digital P&S in the U.S.

 

The impact of digital on film volume is a smoke-screen. Surely Kodak of all companies should have seen which side their bread was going to be buttered on - eventually. A clear example (IMHO) of MBAs gaming the system and the money (patents, yada, yada) instead of keeping their eye on innovative products and technology.

 

They've pinned their hopes on a "commodity" market - inkjet printing - which is the exact place they will get eaten by "commodity" mass manufacturers from Asia who do it cheaper. In an internet/pdf/facebook world - ink is even deader than film (for the really mass-market, anyway - sure, niche enthusiasts can keep Epson and Ilford going).

 

To the detriment of both film and Leica digital users, if it really goes south.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kodak has had numerous shake ups and re-organizations for decades. They fell behind Fuji in film and paper quality and had to build new facilities to catch up. They tried to diversify by purchasing Sterling Drugs and then unloaded it and Eastman Chemicals and their copier division. I don't know what their acquisition strategy was. Untimely or unsuccessful bets on Photo CD for consumers and APS film technology must have hurt. About 17 years ago I had lunch with some Kodak execs. who talked all about Kodak's commitment to digital. They told me that the US military was closing labs and was only interested in digital. One exec. stated that Kodak was determined not to be the Pullman railroad car company of the 21st century.

 

I can't tell you what they could have done differently but other than for a short time, they clearly did not make much of a dent in the consumer or professional digital photography market. (Not nearly enough to replace the lost income from declines in film, paper and chemical sales.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - they couldn't walk the walk they talked, but neither of us can figure out why. I can buy that.

 

I think in general, the expertise at Kodak was not transferable to consumer electronics or professional cameras. When they did make DSLRs they used bodies from Nikon, Canon and Sigma. Even the 14n used mostly Nikon parts. When Nikon made the D1 they could undercut Kodak (or be more profitable) and also benefit from lens sales. Kodak loaned me a Sigma made DCS/c (Canon mount) back in 2003 or 2004 and it was terrible compared to the 1Ds. (Camera function and build and image quality.)

 

The company was not nimble enough to make the necessary changes/alliances/acquisitions and was also stuck carrying a giant gorilla on its back. And even if they did change the culture and everything else at Kodak 15 years ago, there is no guarantee they would have chosen a direction or model that would become successful.

 

The really sad part is that Kodak used to be one of the most recognizable most highly regarded names in the world. Yet today, I don't think the name has much significance to many. That was a very rapid decline of a gigantic brand name that is probably not worth much today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So back to the beginning. If they did go int administration etc I have no idea how this would effect leica and the M9 but the fact is that the DMR can't be repaired anymore because parts are no longer available. The disaster for leica would be unimaginable if this were to happen to a current model!! Anyway I'm not a doom and gloom merchant but just wondered how leica might work around this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before digital the camera and the recording medium were separate and provided by two different sets of companies. When digital came along the recording medium became part of the camera so it was natural for the existing and well established camera companies to make the whole thing, especially as they had been building electronic controls into their film cameras for some years.

 

Kodak and other film companies such as AGFA and Fuji initially made an attempt to go digital, AGFA lasted no time at all, Fuji still hang in there although with a small market share, probably bigger than Kodak's. The major beneficiaries of the switch to digital have been Canon and Nikon. Look how hard it has been for Leica without any electonics background and how Panasonic an electronics company has prospered.

 

Undoubtedly the film companies started from the wrong place and should have been far more forward looking. Perhaps the smaller companies such as AGFA, Ilford etc were doomed but Kodak should have been large enough to have made the move. Perhaps also at Kodak there has been simply too much emphasis on short term returns on company stock.

 

As Adan wrote, how Kodak think they are going to turn the company around with growing share of the consumer inkjet market, dominated by Epson, Canon and HP I dont know.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, I would say that the sensor business unit + intellectual property would be sold off and acquired by another company, who would continue manufacture/sale of the units.

 

It would be great if Leica had the cash to buy them and have the ability to make all components of the camera, ala Canon. Leica just does not have the sales to pull this off, nor experience in this industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...