|
|
|
-
Kodak already made a full size 35mm dSLR, with a very large pixel count for it's time. They made it in both Canon and Nikon mounts iirc. In 2005 they discontinued that and focused that area on higher end/more expensive equipment - medium format, Leica as said, etc.
-
 Originally Posted by Athiril
Kodak already made a full size 35mm dSLR, with a very large pixel count for it's time. They made it in both Canon and Nikon mounts iirc. In 2005 they discontinued that and focused that area on higher end/more expensive equipment - medium format, Leica as said, etc.
Which in hindsight was a massive mistake. Sure, there might be prestige in supplying the high end of town, but what of the DSLR boom? For every 1 'bald or Leica digi sensor sold, there is probably thousands of DSLR's sold (figures plucked off the top of my head).
If they had a DSLR that could be sold to suit popular mounts, they needed to market it properly, which in reality, they didn't.
As others have said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw a Kodak commercial running on TV or on billboards and bus shelters. Canon, Nikon, Sony still use these mediums to promote the photographic wares - Heck, even Sigma run TV commercials for their lenses. Kodak doesn't need a management guru, they need a marketing guru.
-
Originally Posted by Barry S
Kodak never had the "Steve Jobs" they needed--a visionary who could transition their strengths and *create* new markets.
Um....well once upon a time there was a man called George Eastman.
-
Originally Posted by Mike Crawford
Um....well once upon a time there was a man called George Eastman.
Which computer did he invent? 
-
Originally Posted by nickrapak
Personally, I think Kodak made the wrong decision about 13 years ago. If Kodak came out with a $100-150 digital camera instead of APS, they would have cornered the market for digital cameras and would still be relevant today. Instead, they went too long trying to hang on to film on the consumer side of things, and that ended up all but eliminating their share of the market that made them successful. I think they should have stepped to consumer demand with digital, all the while pushing film as the "professional" choice. That way, they couldn't say they were ditching film, while all the while maintaining their presence in the consumer market.
It sounds like a very comprehensive understanding of Kodak's (de)volution. The irony has it that while attempting to save up films on a large segment of the market, Kodak ended up the one that digged up the grave of the films (Kodachrome, 320tx, plus-x and several others).
I believe that the shareholders' greed forced the administrators to go for a quick buck and that might explain the disaster of their digital gears... Correct me if I am wrong...
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Barry S
Kodak never had the "Steve Jobs" they needed--a visionary who could transition their strengths and *create* new markets. When Jobs returned to the ailing Apple he moved Apple from a computer company to a technology company. Kodak was in a very tough position, but they could have made a similar transition instead of moving into other established markets.
Fuji did it. They make their own sensors, glass, and cameras, and (occasionally) analog film.
The X100 is the current digital celebrity from a combination of original and retro thinking, sans a Steve Jobs figure. Most companies just require management to match resources to talent; they don't need the Second Coming.
-
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
Which computer did he invent?
One must "compute" three variables to gain an exposure.
Like all digital data, it went into a box and came out of a box.
-
This slide collection on slideshare.net about Kodak may be of interst, made by Chris Sandström who is a Researcher and public speaker at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology.
http://www.slideshare.net/Christians...ak-destruction
His field of research is about disruptive technology and he can actually explain why many companies, in way different areas of technology, repeat the same mistakes over and over again every time disruptive technology enters the picture.
-
Originally Posted by zsas
tomalophicon - Back in the 80's or 90's maybe Kodak needed to sell Canon and Nikon their ability to make a better sensor? I believe they invented the amazing sensor tech (plus tons of patents that Apple, et al are all looking to buy), Kodak just couldnt sell it and thus the IBM syndrome (i.e. IBM and the PC of the 80's lost to Dell, etc)
you forgot
dell won because they had prison labor do all their work for them
if kodak just offshored everything, kept nothing in the states
maybe they could have one too ...
i don't know if kodak did anything right or wrong 10=15 years ago
i just know their supply chain has been messed up for a long time
dealers have vague ideas of what is being made, not being made
and their printer ads keep interupting spongbob squarepants.
-
Originally Posted by hoffy
Which in hindsight was a massive mistake. Sure, there might be prestige in supplying the high end of town, but what of the DSLR boom? For every 1 'bald or Leica digi sensor sold, there is probably thousands of DSLR's sold (figures plucked off the top of my head).
If they had a DSLR that could be sold to suit popular mounts, they needed to market it properly, which in reality, they didn't.
As others have said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw a Kodak commercial running on TV or on billboards and bus shelters. Canon, Nikon, Sony still use these mediums to promote the photographic wares - Heck, even Sigma run TV commercials for their lenses. Kodak doesn't need a management guru, they need a marketing guru.
They had their hand in the dSLR market, it didn't do too well.
|
|
Adv Reply
