Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
No, not to blame for the loss of "easy money." To blame for mismanaging the consequences of that event.

It's not that event which uniquely caused Kodak's problems. All film manufacturers were hit with that same loss of easy money. But some of them, with better business management at the helm, ended up fairing far better.

The catastrophic drop in film usage is old, old news. The issue with Perez/Kodak BODs is how they reacted to it. Or didn't...

I don't think the money was ever "easy". Kodak invested staggering amounts into reaching deep into the consumer experience and taking the brand along with it, only to find that investment worthless when the quality of digital + its unavoidable convenience became good enough for the average consumer.

Fuji was also hit, but they actually still manufacture sensors (licensing some Kodak patents!) and still produce cameras. Perez should get that axe for failing to keep up with that rival.

But now we are talking about a primarily digital Kodak. It's really hard to make a case that management mismanaged the film asset. From what I understand in another thread, even in the face of the digital paradigm shift, Kodak still invested in a more flexible plant for multiple emulsion systems, and they continued with motion picture efforts to considerable acclaim, and more recently they re-worked Portra and Ektar. That is neither euthanasia nor complacency. I don't think anything Kodak could have done different on the film side could have stemmed any of the erosion of the consumer base.

Kodak, not Sony, sensors should be in every Nikon. Instead of transitioning Kodak like IBM did, Kodak should still be to digital photography what Intel is to the microchip :"Kodak Inside". The lead Kodak squandered is a tragedy.....