4 ms·

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Kodak was not a camera company as much as they were a chemical company. They made film, they made developing age

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Kodak was not a camera company as much as they were a chemical company. They made film, they made developing agents, glass, etc. Eastman Chemical was formerly a subsidary of Kodak, and they had even broader chemical expertise -- fibers, explosives, involved in the Manhattan Project, etc. So transitioning to digital photography would have meant giving up almost all of their expertise and present business interests. It would have meant slashing their revenue and completely reinventing the company. Of course, all of that happened anyway. But one can imagine how difficult it would be to pull that trigger yourself. Doing the long-term responsible thing might have even led to shareholder lawsuits...

perl4ever 7y ago
Shareholders in public companies can easily sell their stock and invest in something else if it seems to be the future. And employees can (not so easily) find another job. A company doesn't need to be eternal. Once upon a time, wasn't a company required to have a fixed purpose and maybe a time limit?
- dralley 7y ago
  >Shareholders in public companies can easily sell their stock and invest in something else if it seems to be the future. That doesn't preclude lawsuits. American business law is fucking stupid.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Huh? Under what scenario would the shareholders get sued for selling their stock? Also, people complain too much about lawsuits versus corporations. Wells Fargo just took a $1.6 billion charge for legal expenses. That's something like 700 person-years at $400/hr, 16 hrs/day. The stupidity isn't the system that allows the lawsuits, it's the corporate mindlessness that wastes the equivalent of 1,000 people's lifetimes on arguing that they didn't do anything wrong instead of just saying "welp you got us".
ghaff 7y ago
There's a popular perspective that companies are better off always taking drastic action even if it will probably lead to going down in flames rather than milking a business through an inevitable decline. And that's not always the case. It's of course natural and sensible for companies to pursue strategies for new products and product lines as existing ones mature and decline. But if doing so means investing in new businesses where you have no particular expertise or advantage, it's unclear if you're benefiting your owners (i.e. shareholders) by doing so. There's plenty to criticize Kodak about. But it was going to be in a very tough position no matter what. And we can name plenty of other businesses that have been completely replaced by new unrelated technologies. Keuffel and Esser wasn't going to become a calculator company.

perl4ever 7y ago

Shareholders in public companies can easily sell their stock and invest in something else if it seems to be the future. And employees can (not so easily) find another job. A company doesn't need to be eternal. Once upon a time, wasn't a company required to have a fixed purpose and maybe a time limit?

dralley 7y ago
>Shareholders in public companies can easily sell their stock and invest in something else if it seems to be the future. That doesn't preclude lawsuits. American business law is fucking stupid.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Huh? Under what scenario would the shareholders get sued for selling their stock? Also, people complain too much about lawsuits versus corporations. Wells Fargo just took a $1.6 billion charge for legal expenses. That's something like 700 person-years at $400/hr, 16 hrs/day. The stupidity isn't the system that allows the lawsuits, it's the corporate mindlessness that wastes the equivalent of 1,000 people's lifetimes on arguing that they didn't do anything wrong instead of just saying "welp you got us".

ghaff 7y ago

There's a popular perspective that companies are better off always taking drastic action even if it will probably lead to going down in flames rather than milking a business through an inevitable decline. And that's not always the case. It's of course natural and sensible for companies to pursue strategies for new products and product lines as existing ones mature and decline. But if doing so means investing in new businesses where you have no particular expertise or advantage, it's unclear if you're benefiting your owners (i.e. shareholders) by doing so. There's plenty to criticize Kodak about. But it was going to be in a very tough position no matter what. And we can name plenty of other businesses that have been completely replaced by new unrelated technologies. Keuffel and Esser wasn't going to become a calculator company.