Very interesting interview. I believe that one mistake that too often is made in regards to the photographic industry is that Kodak management was (and still is) incompetent. The problem is that it is very hard to survive disruptive forces, as Kodak suffered when photography when from silver to digital. Many great companies have died in the wake of all sorts of technology shifts.
I believe that Kodak did its best, but when the odds are against you, failure is not just an option, its the most likely scenario which takes skill, agility and luck to avoid. Big corporations are usually not very agile, not only due to its size, but also due to its internal competences. Kodak was good at making chemicals and film, distributing it to almost every street corner around the world and then getting the film developed and printed. When digital happened, suddenly that hard earned world-class competence of the company and a vast majority of its employees got sidetracked from the future.
Fujifilm seems to be an exception in the film making business having survived the disruptive shock of digital photography, but even Fuji had a bumpy ride to its state today. While the company still thrives, many people lost their jobs in the process and its share price is 70% down (link) from the beginning of the 2000:s.
Three great reads:
The Economist, How Fujifilm survived http://www.economist.com/blogs/schum...ifilm-survived
The Economist, The last Kodak moment?, http://www.economist.com/node/21542796
Sandström, Disruptive Innovation, Kodak and digital imaging http://www.slideshare.net/Christians...ak-destruction