4 ms·
One could imagine that IBM could have failed to make the transition from analog machines like this to digital computers, yet they didn't. Meanwhile, other compa
by js2 9y ago
One could imagine that IBM could have failed to make the transition from analog machines like this to digital computers, yet they didn't. Meanwhile, other companies such as Kodak failed to capitialize on the analog to digital transiton. Was it just a difference in executive leadership?
- yeukhon 9y agoKodak made the transition too late, that’s the reason.
- mrob 9y agoAren't these machines also digital? I see discrete notches in the counter wheels, and I can't imagine accountants accepting analog noise in their results. Digital doesn't have to mean binary.
- makomk 9y agoOne common explanation is that there simply wasn't enough money in digital photography to sustain a company like Kodak, because people didn't need supplies like film anymore. Meanwhile the computing revolution expanded the market for IBM's products and the amount they could charge for them, at least in the short term.
- kens 9y agoOne reason IBM could make the transition from electromechanical (not analog) systems to programmable computers is that it wasn't really a disruptive change to their business model or to their customers. They were still renting out punched-card business machines. On the other hand, the switch to digital cameras totally messed up Kodak's film-based business model. Another factor is that both Thomas Watson Sr. and Jr. were very strong, effective leaders for IBM (based on what I've read and heard).