[TeMPOraL]

> Nvidia selling more GPU's at the cost of it's datacenter business is pretty close to Kodak selling digital cameras at the cost of film.

You mean they resisted the idea trying to protect their legacy business, and it ended up all but killing them?

[elictronic]

They resisted the idea because it did kill their legacy business. Kodaks peak was 16 billion in revenue in 1996. The digital camera market will be approaching that level of value inflation adjusted around 2030.

35 years to get back to status quo. Putting a bullet in a golden goose is often considered a bad idea. Everyone is happy they are dead, but if you can't understand why they might try to keep the corpse alive you have never looked at the numbers.

[davkan]

Kodak was definitely mismanaged in many ways but you are correct in your analysis. If they had pivoted hard to digital they could have been what today? Nikon? Fujifilm? These are known brands that are bigger than Kodak is today but they are nothing compared to what Kodak was.

At its peak Kodak was one of the (the?) most well known brands on the entire planet. Anywhere in the world if someone snapped a photo Kodak was more than likely taking a cut, coming and going. They employed as many people in Rochester alone as any digital camera company does today internationally.

Sure it could have been managed better but they were always doomed for a fall. They were a chemical company entering a digital age. Does anybody even care who makes the sensors in iPhones?

[BoorishBears]

> If they had pivoted hard to digital they could have been what today?

Having the first portable-ish digital camera they could have seen the true value of Fairchild's CCD business, got a stake/bought it/replicated done whatever it took to push the frontier of digital imaging and became the Kodak (old, film-era Kodak) of electronic imaging?

There's no comparable business today because all the things they could have invested in ended up being taken up by different companies, they had the R&D culture, revenue, and distribution. I don't see why they couldn't have been category defining.

[davkan]

They could have been category defining, sure. It would still be a fall though is my point. A fall from being a household name across the entire world to a company making components and niche hobbyist and professional equipment.

[Danox]

Kodak, like Xerox had it all under one roof their management at the time turned their back on the future…

IBM was the same way, ironically, the fourth Yankee clipper company had to be dragged into using two types of glasses sitting on the shelf that were patented/created in the early 1960s, both of which later became known as gorilla glass. Steve Jobs had to call them (Corning) multiple times to get them to finally let him use it on the iPhone. Imagine if Steve had contracted out to some other glass company in the far east?

[davkan]

The future was the death of Kodak as it existed regardless. They were a chemical manufacturing company that did some software. Their core business was doomed regardless. Could they have pivoted? Yes. But even if you correct every missed shot they’d still be a shell of their former selves unless you’re creating wild counterfactuals like a kodaphone.

[senordevnyc]

The digital camera market will be approaching that level of value inflation adjusted around 2030.

Only if you ignore the digital camera sector responsible for probably 99% of all digital photos taken…

[elictronic]

You make money on the sensor, not the photo. The sensor is basically a commodity at this point. Expecting a chemical company to become a software company aka Apple in the US investing environment is pretty funny to me.

The CEO would likely have been shot or arrested.

[Danox]

Kodak, Xerox, IBM, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois are perfect examples of companies that did not want to upset the apple cart, another example outside tech of tech that did not want to go into the future was US Steel, and while I’m at it to a lesser extent Ford and GM are teetering since 1973…