3 ms·
Kodak could have owned this market People keep saying that, but it doesn't check out. Look at who owns the camera market: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus a
by jedrek 11y ago
Kodak could have owned this market
People keep saying that, but it doesn't check out. Look at who owns the camera market: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus and Apple.
None of these companies are new, two thirds of them had huge analog camera businesses 30 years ago. The major shift in digital photography was people going from spending $500 on a camera and $1000 on film and $1000 on processing, to spending $1000 on a camera and $500 on a computer.
Now, I bet Kodak could have done very well as a sensor supplier (like Sony or Samsung), but thinking that they could've somehow "owned this market"... It's been 15 years since Nikon released the first pro DSLR (D1) and Canon released the first affordable DSLR (the Canon D30), and look how many competitors are chomping at their heels. That's because Nikon and Canon both have lens systems with a huge range of glass, much of it designed before 1999. If you bought a D1 or D30, you could go to your local camera store and pick up everything from a super-wide to a long telephoto. Kodak had none of that.
- Aloha 11y agoKodak did have a near monopoly in consumer cameras though, and they could have had a monopoly in sensors too - what they could have done by leading it rather than playing catchup is changing how adoption worked. Had Kodak led it, we for example might print a ton more digital photography than we do now, because the charge was instead lead by Sony (in my opinion) and their early mavica - and for a long time you couldn't print digital photos onto real photo paper using a lasting process - because kodak controlled something like 70% of the processing market, they could have led the ability to print in store. As it was, high quality printing from digital didn't come until much later.