2 ms·

I think it has more to do with the difficulty of responding to market changes. If you are running a successful company that dominates a particular market, it is

I think it has more to do with the difficulty of responding to market changes. If you are running a successful company that dominates a particular market, it is HARD to make big changes, even if you foresee that the market is going to change under you. DEC was a great minicomputer company. But it just couldn't make the change to the microcomputer era, despite formidable management and technical expertise. Kodak was making all kinds of crazy money from film and photo paper, which made them really slow on the draw when the market shifted under them and moved to digital photography.

craftyguy 9y ago
It's both. Kodak was slow on the draw because making the big investments early on to move to digital photography would have pissed off shareholders who would percieve the move as a drain on the coffers and hurting 'Kodak's bottom line'. You can see this with other companies today (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc) that are struggling to stay relevant in areas where they have not traditionally been, they don't have the stomach to make the long term investments early enough, and if they do, they don't stick with them long enough.