3 ms·

Kodak itself was the first to demonstrate a digital camera in 1975.[0] There is no one else to blame for any decisions. [0] https://www.seattlepi.com/business/

Kodak itself was the first to demonstrate a digital camera in 1975.[0] There is no one else to blame for any decisions. [0] https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/kodak-engineer-had-revolutionary-idea-the-first-1182624.php https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/kodak-engineer-ha...

jljljl 1y ago
From the article it sounds like they had strong market share in Digital Cameras in the early 2000’s. What really killed then was phones becoming the dominant form factor
- xhkkffbf 1y ago
  It's true. I chose Kodak digital cameras and was happy with them. They were simple, well-priced and pretty nice all around. It's just that the cell phones took over that job. (And a dozen other ones too.)
- Melatonic 1y ago
  They should have become a digital sensor supplier like Sony - could have been big if they did it early enough
  - hopelite 1y ago
    You imply a major if not the only real factor in all of this, the self-destruction America engaged in to “fight communism” by advantaging others at its own detriment. The simple version of this matter is that in the 70-90s it was Japan, from the 80s Mexico/Latin America, from the 90s on it was China, from the 00s India, etc. In essence, America was ruined by a kind of fast talking con artistry by people with selfish interests. America has fallen to con artists … “listen here. What you really need to do is help others in my interest, and not help your own in your own interests. That’s the smart thing to do. You see?“
DerekL 1y ago
But switching to making digital cameras wouldn’t have helped much, because selling cameras was never really their business. Their main business was selling film, photo paper, developer, etc.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  And the mass market consumer digital camera market didn't last terribly long either and is effectively dead. It is now a high end hobby with low volume high margin production. Smartphone cameras and digital distribution of images would have killed them 10-20 years later anyway.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Given that Sony and Samsung make, basically, every smartphone cellphone camera sensor, it doesn't seem inconceivable that a more agile Kodak could have fully pivoted to producing cellphone camera sensors, and fully owned that segment, as well as adding value add services that took advantage of their printing expertise. Sending digital photos to Kodak for them to print and mail them back to you wouldn't have saved all of the company, but if we handwave that it were successful at that, the brand could have kept going for a lot longer. Following that, a prescient, adaptible Kodak could also have created a photo sharing service, like Flickr or Instagram. The question of why is CEO and executive pay so high always comes up, and between Kodak and RIM/Blackberry, it's easy to argue the good ones are worth what they're paid, as the ones who tank the company clearly are not.
    - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
      Yes, I think if a television and casette-player company like Sony could succeed at pivoting into making CMOS imaging sensors, Kodak could certainly have done the same and beaten them to the punch. As for executive pay, I think the biggest problem is that it often seems like the executive class gets richly rewarded whether they succeed or fail. Boeing's former CEO was rewarded more for his failures than most people earn for a lifetime of good performance.
  - 1y ago
regnull 1y ago
I always thought that this story is probably more nuanced, and indeed it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kodak-digital-camera-invention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kodak-digital-camera-inven... In particular: "While this may have been a motivating factor to some at Kodak, such concerns did not stop Kodak — or even Sasson — from further developing digital cameras and making several technical developments that led to Kodak's first publicly available digital camera in 1991, the Digital Camera System."

jljljl 1y ago

From the article it sounds like they had strong market share in Digital Cameras in the early 2000’s. What really killed then was phones becoming the dominant form factor

xhkkffbf 1y ago
It's true. I chose Kodak digital cameras and was happy with them. They were simple, well-priced and pretty nice all around. It's just that the cell phones took over that job. (And a dozen other ones too.)
Melatonic 1y ago
They should have become a digital sensor supplier like Sony - could have been big if they did it early enough
- hopelite 1y ago
  You imply a major if not the only real factor in all of this, the self-destruction America engaged in to “fight communism” by advantaging others at its own detriment. The simple version of this matter is that in the 70-90s it was Japan, from the 80s Mexico/Latin America, from the 90s on it was China, from the 00s India, etc. In essence, America was ruined by a kind of fast talking con artistry by people with selfish interests. America has fallen to con artists … “listen here. What you really need to do is help others in my interest, and not help your own in your own interests. That’s the smart thing to do. You see?“

DerekL 1y ago

But switching to making digital cameras wouldn’t have helped much, because selling cameras was never really their business. Their main business was selling film, photo paper, developer, etc.

steveBK123 1y ago
And the mass market consumer digital camera market didn't last terribly long either and is effectively dead. It is now a high end hobby with low volume high margin production. Smartphone cameras and digital distribution of images would have killed them 10-20 years later anyway.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Given that Sony and Samsung make, basically, every smartphone cellphone camera sensor, it doesn't seem inconceivable that a more agile Kodak could have fully pivoted to producing cellphone camera sensors, and fully owned that segment, as well as adding value add services that took advantage of their printing expertise. Sending digital photos to Kodak for them to print and mail them back to you wouldn't have saved all of the company, but if we handwave that it were successful at that, the brand could have kept going for a lot longer. Following that, a prescient, adaptible Kodak could also have created a photo sharing service, like Flickr or Instagram. The question of why is CEO and executive pay so high always comes up, and between Kodak and RIM/Blackberry, it's easy to argue the good ones are worth what they're paid, as the ones who tank the company clearly are not.
  - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
    Yes, I think if a television and casette-player company like Sony could succeed at pivoting into making CMOS imaging sensors, Kodak could certainly have done the same and beaten them to the punch. As for executive pay, I think the biggest problem is that it often seems like the executive class gets richly rewarded whether they succeed or fail. Boeing's former CEO was rewarded more for his failures than most people earn for a lifetime of good performance.
- 1y ago

regnull 1y ago

I always thought that this story is probably more nuanced, and indeed it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kodak-digital-camera-invention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kodak-digital-camera-inven... In particular: "While this may have been a motivating factor to some at Kodak, such concerns did not stop Kodak — or even Sasson — from further developing digital cameras and making several technical developments that led to Kodak's first publicly available digital camera in 1991, the Digital Camera System."