6 ms·

It's not that they didn't respond. They had loads of digital printers, cameras, digital picture frames, photo papers. They even had fairly innovative stuff, the

It's not that they didn't respond. They had loads of digital printers, cameras, digital picture frames, photo papers. They even had fairly innovative stuff, the Kodak Easyshare Frame's fetched a good price for a while. The first frames that you could email a picture too. They even innovated on SmartTV boxes, one of the first items you could watch Youtube on your TV with the "Kodak Home Theatre HD Player" It's not at all the same as like sears failing to migrate to online shopping. Kodak was in a situation where there industry just pretty much died. The only real way they could have pivoted would have basically been to become Apple and invent the Iphone first.

indigodaddy 2y ago
Instead they transitioned to outsourced IT management or something to that effect I think?
Finnucane 2y ago
And in addition, the Kodak DCS was the first digital SLR. (Basically a Nikon with a digital sensor strapped on). But, it was insanely expensive, adopted for limited applications. It is true that Kodak lost an opportunity to be a 'first mover' in consumer digital cameras. Would it have made much difference in the long run? probably not.
treflop 2y ago
Kodak was probably a chemical company first with a depth of chemical knowledge (a bulk of the development of photography was the design of film chemicals). Fujifilm, Kodak’s later main competitor, was in the same boat and they just leaned into chemicals more. Fujifilm survived and then went back to photography and now makes instant photography film again. They also make digital cameras that have a decent following. Kodak could have probably done the same. They were probably right to to not invest in digital, but they were probably wrong to not invest in chemicals, their actual main strength.
- hattmall 2y ago
  But they did invest in digitals, heavily. There just wasn't enough there to power the huge ship that had been driven by film. Even if they controlled the entire digitals market it wouldn't compare to the previous film market. Perhaps chemicals could have been a saving grace, but I believe Fujifilm had a sufficiently cushioned blow due to the Xerox subsidiary and the more favorable Japanese Business environment. In contrast to Kodak, Fujifilm didn't suffer a significant reduction in government revenue.
  - treflop 2y ago
    I think the big problem was that digital technology just wasn’t good yet to bother making a digital camera. It’s not just the sensor… it’s also storage and processing and it took a few decades before digital cameras were good. Investing in digital cameras was going to require many years of R&D with little payback. Someone like Sony could do it because they have all these other business sectors to subsidize development. If Kodak couldn’t go into the chemical business, I’m not sure what else they could have done then.
    - woleium 2y ago
      They also had a nuclear reactor in a basement. I have no idea when that was commissioned or what research they were doing with it https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/local/2016/08/18/did-you-know-kodak-park-had-nuclear-reactor/88944080/ https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/local/2016/08/18/...
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Fujifilm was also just a much smaller company. Which isn’t necessarily an advantage but probably was in this case—and Fujifilm went through some tough times too.
- bradfa 2y ago
  Kodak did invest heavily into chemicals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Chemical_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Chemical_Company
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    As that article states, they spun it off as a separate company in 1994, before digital photography hit. Kodak management's mistake was laser-focusing on consumer imaging, and spinning off all of its other businesses like chemical, medical, office systems, etc. Consumer imaging was the one thing that dropped to zero in value as it became a commodity, and Fujifilm survived through those other businesses.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  > Fujifilm survived and then went back to photography and now makes instant photography film again It's actually funny how Fujifilm's single largest generator of revenue is again analog film
Suppafly 2y ago
All of their products were a little too cheaply designed and made though. They drug their feet getting into the digital camera game and when they finally did, they released cameras that looked like toys compared to the other companies' offerings.
- nsguy 2y ago
  I think you're referring to a later period. They had earlier digital cameras that were not cheap and were ahead of the competition. IIRC Kodak invented the digital camera pretty much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    Sure, but those weren't really mass marketed. You don't make money by making one off devices that aren't sold to the general public. The few things that they did market were too expensive and not readily available. Hell most of the links in that wiki are red because none of the individual models were interesting enough to even have their own entries. They started the race and then dropped out instead of investing in long term survival of their company.
    - nsguy 2y ago
      I used a Kodak digital camera in the late 90's. I don't remember the model name. These cameras were not "one offs". They were not quite consumer products either. They were more "Pro-sumer". Even later they had some pretty good models but were just a touch too late into the consumer market vs. others like Sony, Fuji and Canon when the market exploded. I'm not really sure anyone made a lot of money in this market.
nradov 2y ago
There is a profitable business in supplying camera sensors, lenses, and other parts to phone manufacturers. You don't have to invent the entire device.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  There is, now. Also the margins are thin and the competition is fierce.
ssl-3 2y ago
Before their downfall, Sears had a better website than Amazon for buying hard goods. When Amazon was still focused on selling books, Sears had a huge array of non-book stuff that could be bought and shipped to their store for free, or delivered anywhere at a fairly low cost. I bought all kinds of stuff that way, at a time when buying anything online still seemed kind of novel. For a very long time the Sears Parts website was the foremost place to find appliance parts and documentation online. Sears was even one of the founders of Prodigy, years before Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the Word Wide Web. FFS, they had a rich history of taking orders and delivering products that started over a century ago. So, one might ask: If the old trope of "they didn't understand teh Intarwebs, herp herp" is false, then what was it that brought ruin to Sears a little bit quicker than some of their fellow mall anchor peers? And that answer is simple: Standard corporate raider tactics. https://janweirlaw.medium.com/how-hedge-funds-profit-from-bankruptcy-the-tradgedy-of-sears-3a1e3a8e6094 https://janweirlaw.medium.com/how-hedge-funds-profit-from-ba...
- jzent 2y ago
  I think the issue with Sears is they had a ton of large brick-mortar-stores (often the "anchors" at malls, which is another nearly dead industry with the last indoor mall built in the US in 2006). Remember the fear of Wal-Mart killing main street in the late 90s into the 2000s? Wal-Mart came in and killed the competition, which included Sears. Then Amazaon annihilated Sears further and took a huge dent in Wal-Mart. Sears had no choice but to implode. I imagine major horse and carriage companies suffered a similar fate with the invention of the automobile.
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    You’d might think that — seems obvious, right? — but you’d be wrong! Private equity killed Sears. https://prospect.org/economy/sears-gutted-ceo/ https://prospect.org/economy/sears-gutted-ceo/ https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/investing/retail-sears-private-equity/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/investing/retail-sears-privat...
    - vlark 2y ago
jzent 2y ago
Likewise with Blockbuster. They started a DVD mail-order service and streaming service to compete with Netflix, but it was too little too late.

indigodaddy 2y ago

Instead they transitioned to outsourced IT management or something to that effect I think?

Finnucane 2y ago

And in addition, the Kodak DCS was the first digital SLR. (Basically a Nikon with a digital sensor strapped on). But, it was insanely expensive, adopted for limited applications. It is true that Kodak lost an opportunity to be a 'first mover' in consumer digital cameras. Would it have made much difference in the long run? probably not.

treflop 2y ago

Kodak was probably a chemical company first with a depth of chemical knowledge (a bulk of the development of photography was the design of film chemicals). Fujifilm, Kodak’s later main competitor, was in the same boat and they just leaned into chemicals more. Fujifilm survived and then went back to photography and now makes instant photography film again. They also make digital cameras that have a decent following. Kodak could have probably done the same. They were probably right to to not invest in digital, but they were probably wrong to not invest in chemicals, their actual main strength.

hattmall 2y ago
But they did invest in digitals, heavily. There just wasn't enough there to power the huge ship that had been driven by film. Even if they controlled the entire digitals market it wouldn't compare to the previous film market. Perhaps chemicals could have been a saving grace, but I believe Fujifilm had a sufficiently cushioned blow due to the Xerox subsidiary and the more favorable Japanese Business environment. In contrast to Kodak, Fujifilm didn't suffer a significant reduction in government revenue.
- treflop 2y ago
  I think the big problem was that digital technology just wasn’t good yet to bother making a digital camera. It’s not just the sensor… it’s also storage and processing and it took a few decades before digital cameras were good. Investing in digital cameras was going to require many years of R&D with little payback. Someone like Sony could do it because they have all these other business sectors to subsidize development. If Kodak couldn’t go into the chemical business, I’m not sure what else they could have done then.
  - woleium 2y ago
    They also had a nuclear reactor in a basement. I have no idea when that was commissioned or what research they were doing with it https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/local/2016/08/18/did-you-know-kodak-park-had-nuclear-reactor/88944080/ https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/local/2016/08/18/...
- ghaff 2y ago
  Fujifilm was also just a much smaller company. Which isn’t necessarily an advantage but probably was in this case—and Fujifilm went through some tough times too.
bradfa 2y ago
Kodak did invest heavily into chemicals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Chemical_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Chemical_Company
- kalleboo 2y ago
  As that article states, they spun it off as a separate company in 1994, before digital photography hit. Kodak management's mistake was laser-focusing on consumer imaging, and spinning off all of its other businesses like chemical, medical, office systems, etc. Consumer imaging was the one thing that dropped to zero in value as it became a commodity, and Fujifilm survived through those other businesses.
kalleboo 2y ago
> Fujifilm survived and then went back to photography and now makes instant photography film again It's actually funny how Fujifilm's single largest generator of revenue is again analog film

Suppafly 2y ago

All of their products were a little too cheaply designed and made though. They drug their feet getting into the digital camera game and when they finally did, they released cameras that looked like toys compared to the other companies' offerings.

nsguy 2y ago
I think you're referring to a later period. They had earlier digital cameras that were not cheap and were ahead of the competition. IIRC Kodak invented the digital camera pretty much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS
- Suppafly 2y ago
  Sure, but those weren't really mass marketed. You don't make money by making one off devices that aren't sold to the general public. The few things that they did market were too expensive and not readily available. Hell most of the links in that wiki are red because none of the individual models were interesting enough to even have their own entries. They started the race and then dropped out instead of investing in long term survival of their company.
  - nsguy 2y ago
    I used a Kodak digital camera in the late 90's. I don't remember the model name. These cameras were not "one offs". They were not quite consumer products either. They were more "Pro-sumer". Even later they had some pretty good models but were just a touch too late into the consumer market vs. others like Sony, Fuji and Canon when the market exploded. I'm not really sure anyone made a lot of money in this market.

nradov 2y ago

There is a profitable business in supplying camera sensors, lenses, and other parts to phone manufacturers. You don't have to invent the entire device.

actionfromafar 2y ago
There is, now. Also the margins are thin and the competition is fierce.

ssl-3 2y ago

Before their downfall, Sears had a better website than Amazon for buying hard goods. When Amazon was still focused on selling books, Sears had a huge array of non-book stuff that could be bought and shipped to their store for free, or delivered anywhere at a fairly low cost. I bought all kinds of stuff that way, at a time when buying anything online still seemed kind of novel. For a very long time the Sears Parts website was the foremost place to find appliance parts and documentation online. Sears was even one of the founders of Prodigy, years before Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the Word Wide Web. FFS, they had a rich history of taking orders and delivering products that started over a century ago. So, one might ask: If the old trope of "they didn't understand teh Intarwebs, herp herp" is false, then what was it that brought ruin to Sears a little bit quicker than some of their fellow mall anchor peers? And that answer is simple: Standard corporate raider tactics. https://janweirlaw.medium.com/how-hedge-funds-profit-from-bankruptcy-the-tradgedy-of-sears-3a1e3a8e6094 https://janweirlaw.medium.com/how-hedge-funds-profit-from-ba...

jzent 2y ago
I think the issue with Sears is they had a ton of large brick-mortar-stores (often the "anchors" at malls, which is another nearly dead industry with the last indoor mall built in the US in 2006). Remember the fear of Wal-Mart killing main street in the late 90s into the 2000s? Wal-Mart came in and killed the competition, which included Sears. Then Amazaon annihilated Sears further and took a huge dent in Wal-Mart. Sears had no choice but to implode. I imagine major horse and carriage companies suffered a similar fate with the invention of the automobile.
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  You’d might think that — seems obvious, right? — but you’d be wrong! Private equity killed Sears. https://prospect.org/economy/sears-gutted-ceo/ https://prospect.org/economy/sears-gutted-ceo/ https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/investing/retail-sears-private-equity/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/investing/retail-sears-privat...
  - vlark 2y ago

jzent 2y ago

Likewise with Blockbuster. They started a DVD mail-order service and streaming service to compete with Netflix, but it was too little too late.