Despite being a film company Kodak made one of the first digital backs for SLRs and has made many models of consumer point and shoot digital cameras. No different than Fuji they could have done well in that space
I wouldn't call Kodak or Fuji "successful" in camera business but then again I'm more of a pro than amateur. (And yes I had Fuji DSLR once before Nikon got their shit together with D70. How time had flied.)
What RED doing is amazing. From my 20 years experience with Kodak I don't think they have a chance to do something like that (they're just too arrogant or too ambitious).
A 100+ year run isn't too shabby tho. No business will last forever IMHO. Apple should hope to be so fortunate as to still be a household name in another 70 years.
Agreed, Kodak doesn't fit the definition of a patent troll. This doesn't mean it's patents are valid, but Kodak didn't buy these patents off somebody just for the purpose of hiding in the dark and popping out to surprise would be makers of successful products demanding payment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There is a difference here. Kodak developed these patents, they didn't buy them to milk other corporations but now that they are practically done as a going concern they may as well take advantage of what little they have left.
Agreed, Kodak doesn't fit the definition of a patent troll. This doesn't mean it's patents are valid, but Kodak didn't buy these patents off somebody just for the purpose of hiding in the dark and popping out to surprise would be makers of successful products demanding payment.
I remember when Polaroid went after Kodak for developing instant film tech. Kodak lost. (Polaroid's value in 1976 - $800 million / Kodak - $5 billion)
Edwin Land said at the beginning of this patent battle:
"We took nothing from anybody. We gave a great deal to the world. The only thing keeping us alive is our brilliance. The only thing that keeps our brilliance alive is our patents."
Kodaks Park is right across town, literally on the west side of the city. So I'm more than a little familiar with the company, plus I work with more than a few people who use to be employees there. So I will try to pass on my perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
It's strange. Though late to the game, they should have at least been able to get into smartphone camera tech or especially digital SLR camera tech. Digital film and 3D as well.
Kodaks actually owns one of the Japanesse camera companies. Unfortunately it is primarily focused on point and shoot. If you know of any camera shops point and shoot is on hard times itself due to cell phones.
Locally I believe they spun off one of their lens replication businesses. What you need to realize is that Kodaks has or had lots of little businesses but none of them added up to a film business especially where profitability is concerned.
Quote:
Maybe they were crippled by the very thing they epitomised: preserving memories and hanging on to the past.
They where crippled, for a long time, by management that couldn't grasp how quickly film was going to come to an end. They where very much use to strong arm control over the film market. I use to be into film photography and could tell a story or two about Kodaks and it's attitude towards the market and competition.
Beyond that I'm left with the impression that if you where in management and brought up the obvious about digital you wouldn't be around long at Kodaks. Things have changed now but there was apparently an attitude within management at Kodaks that film was not going anywhere soon. In retrospect we can see that a 100 years of film success was demolished in less than a decade of digital availability.
Quote:
But they have been producing digital cameras although nowhere near Nikon and Canon that transitioned very successfully.
They are still in the camera business but as noted they went after their traditional high volume markets with point and shoot. However camera phones have beaten that market to death. Nikon and Cannon are also suffering in that market thus the focus on higher end hardware. In a way this reflects the same mistake seen in film, they mis judged how fast the market would evaporate.
Quote:
Patent shopping is only going to make everyone think they're really desperate and company morale could drop significantly.
Moral drop even more! Ha ha. Locally they had like 50-60,000 people employed, now I believe they are down to less than 5000. That cut in employment doesn't include all the closed plants around the world.
Frankly they are desperate and wall street knows it. Even if they can win a suit or two here or there the cash they will receive is trivial. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in Penney stock territory soon.
Quote:
Not sure why their Cloud stuff hasn't taken off as well:
Not knowing how to market it for one. Plus everyone wants the cloud to be free. Beyond that some of the reasons people think the cloud will succeed are BS anyways. There are many inherent problems with the cloud that many don't want to deal with.
Quote:
Can someone explain what exactly happened to Kodak?
Exactly nope that isn't possible. However the big mistake in my mind was nit recognizing how quickly film would die and then selling off business units to support a failing business. Kodaks was a huge company made up of a bunch of supporting businesses. In retrospect it probably would gave made more sense to focus on those businesses. For example they sold off Eastman Chemicals, a Goverment contracting business(spy hardware), a battery business, medical diagnostic and a bunch of other little businesses. In the end a lot of stuff ended up pruned from the company for one reason or another to try to shore up photography and specifically film.
While none of these businesses had the potential to replace the profits that film had, many of them are still viable on going ventures. Some established and some more startup like. I should look and see if there is a list of on going spin offs, ventures and the like as a result of Kodaks "realignment". Locally there are more than a few. Some independent others absorbed by other companies.
Kodaks itself has gotten into a number of different fields to try to build the company back up. Apparently wall street doesn't think much of these businesses. In any event I don't follow Kodaks much at all anymore. Oh don't Roget that they still have a few ongoing business units built up on their own. Last I knew the guys doing CCDs where doing well.
As an aside the area around Kodak parks looks like a Mini Detroit. Even the strip joints and bars closed down.
Kodak had many options, regretfully there were internal conflicts, mostly between the film department and "everyone else". They saw film as king and didn't evolve, even as other departments were trying to develop new products including cameras, but the film departments squashed many of the ideas claiming other departments weren't "good enough" to take precedence over what kodak did best... film. They were afraid to divert money from film and now they have nothing to sell. Even tiffen makes digital "filters" these days.
That sums up one big issue with Kodaks melt down. The people with the least chance of success had the most influence.
Quote:
Although, doesn't Kodak also hold some rather juicy OLED patents as well?
Yes they do. However after billions invested around the world nobody has a OLED screen that lasts.
Quote:
They should have done something cool like RED, because frankly RED is so dependent on their "cool" image they fail to innovate the way other larger companies with more money can. A new product from them is like waiting for paint to dry under the sea.
Last I knew one of Kodaks more successful on going businesses is their CCD production facility. The problem with doing something like RED is that it is a trivial business compared to film. The death of film at Kodak can be likened to a stripper that realizes she is to old to dance anymore. All of a sudden all that money is gone and the options she is left with don't even come close to bringing in the cash she is use too. The profits from film simply dwarfed anything else that Kodak had going.
Everyone has the chance to reinvent themselves, hell look at the one company everyone is suing now, because they not only reinvented themselves but they did and are continuing to do one hell of a (Steve) job at it.
It's a bad case of "Keep up or Fall behind"
... and that's as simple as it needs to get.
Kodak couldn't reinvent itself. Very few companies can. Many are big enough that they can survive in a smaller capacity, but quite a few just disappear.
Kodak's corporate culture (as is the case with most companies... and humans for that matter) will not allow themselves to move outside their box... disaster can follow as easily as just doing nothing. Sort of like when you get a guy who sells sugar water to run a computer company... it does quite well for a while but then the guy has nothing more to offer than marketing, no innovation, and the company runs into trouble.
People who can innovate (and market) do things like turn a computer company into a phone company.
At this point I think if Kodak had any serious intention of making a comeback in the digital age (not that they have any chance of doing that) they would do well to change their name.
Would anyone buy a cell phone because it has "Kodak technology inside"? Does anyone under the age of 40 think that a Kodak digital point and shoot is anything other than a quaint old person's affectation, or that their printers have anything to offer over HP or Canon?
They've managed to link their brand to obsolescence, down market lowered expectations and failure. "Kodak" has all the cachet of "Remington-Rand" trying to make computers. It's a real shame, because Kodak was a great American company, but they had the misfortune of operating in a market that was utterly transformed by technology and which continues to transform at a rapid pace. Just kind of hanging out on your laurels for 20 years or so while all that was going on leaves you looking like an artifact from another century-- which in fact they are.
That pretty much sums up the purpose of patents. It is so much easier and less costly to copy an idea somebody else came up. Absent protection, the copier puts the copied at a disadvantage because the copied has to pay for the research cost while the copier generally does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Edwin Land said at the beginning of this patent battle:
"We took nothing from anybody. We gave a great deal to the world. The only thing keeping us alive is our brilliance. The only thing that keeps our brilliance alive is our patents."
That pretty much sums up the purpose of patents. It is so much easier and less costly to copy an idea somebody else came up. Absent protection, the copier puts the copied at a disadvantage because the copied has to pay for the research cost while the copier generally does not.
On the other hand as this story shows, often ideas are much older than the 'originators' think.
That sums up one big issue with Kodaks melt down. The people with the least chance of success had the most influence.
Yes they do. However after billions invested around the world nobody has a OLED screen that lasts.
Last I knew one of Kodaks more successful on going businesses is their CCD production facility. The problem with doing something like RED is that it is a trivial business compared to film. The death of film at Kodak can be likened to a stripper that realizes she is to old to dance anymore. All of a sudden all that money is gone and the options she is left with don't even come close to bringing in the cash she is use too. The profits from film simply dwarfed anything else that Kodak had going.
I kinda thought so. Had a few acquaintances that worked up there too. Too bad too. As if NY needs another empty facility... I live not too far from IBM's old facilities in Poughkeesie and to the north of us in Kingston. To this day they are still vacant and some of them lay in ruin; collapsing roofs and all. It kills me to know one of the world most advanced chip plants is unused.
Another thing we don't need upstate is another aging stripper either.
I wonder if these companies hadn't been so poorly run how that would have effected industry (the economy) in the states.
Great points wizard. Thanks. It is just amazingly ironic how arrogant so many aspects of the motion picture industry were... From celebrities to directors, cinematographers, equipment makers, film suppliers and developers through to companies that designed film titles. I mean, they gave us some great stuff that defined generations, popular culture and spread the image of America beyond most Americans can even conceive.
But like you say, so much of that decimated in a decade. A bitter pill for everyone involved to swallow. Maybe it is indeed true that you reap what you sow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
I kinda thought so. Had a few acquaintances that worked up there too. Too bad too. As if NY needs another empty facility... I live not too far from IBM's old facilities in Poughkeesie and to the north of us in Kingston. To this day they are still vacant and some of them lay in ruin; collapsing roofs and all. It kills me to know one of the world most advanced chip plants is unused.
I wonder if these companies hadn't been so poorly run how that would have effected industry (the economy) in the states.
For the USA I don't think it was mismanagement as much as complacency. Yeah, there were some real screw ups and scandals but in most cases some companies just fell behind, which is I guess a natural and important part of capitalism, except for the unfortunate side effect of unemployment and entire towns having the life sucked out of them.
The challenge in the US is that due to the scale of the domestic economy alone companies can become big real fast but also drop off the cliff extremely fast too.
It's interesting that you mention IBM, I was just in a small-ish brand-new IBM building here in Malaysia. Only thing is they're not making chips, they're doing outsourced call centre services.
It must be difficult for Americans to see decay in their own backyards as their own companies invest oodles of cash overseas.
RED is a boutique company that makes a really cool but expensive (though for their market space far less expensive than traditional film cameras) line of digital video cameras. Kodak probably spent more on legal fees for their patent lawsuits than RED has made in the last 3 years. Emulating RED is probably not a wise place for them to go. But, Kodak does have experience in the digital camera space. Despite being a film company Kodak made one of the first digital backs for SLRs and has made many models of consumer point and shoot digital cameras. No different than Fuji they could have done well in that space if they would have stayed competitive but instead they have seceded market share to Canon and others who use their high-end brand appeal to entice consumers to buy their branded gear.
Kodak needs to quickly figure out how to take what it knows about film and apply it to the digital world. Maybe they can figure out a way to apply analog qualities to digital imaging allowing it to break the megapixel barrier and give you total dynamic range and resolution independence. Build a camera around that and you may have a whole new following.
As you hinted, the cameras are costly, but only in terms of comparison with run of the mill consumer video cameras. One must compare the RED cameras with both high-end 35 mm movie cameras and other high-end digital video cameras. In that comparison, they are inexpensive and their quality is excellent. Peter Jackson is using twin RED Epics for the new 3-D Hobbit films and they should provide for some amazing footage. I understand those films will also be projected at a higher frame rate of 48 frames per second (fps), which should alleviate some of the motion sickness typically associated with the usual 24 fps exhibition standard for 3-D films (and just for the record, James Cameron is planning on the same thing for the next Avatar movies).
Everyone has the chance to reinvent themselves, hell look at the one company everyone is suing now, because they not only reinvented themselves but they did and are continuing to do one hell of a (Steve) job at it.
It's a bad case of "Keep up or Fall behind"
And that may very well be Apple's downfall. Steve's part in the company is too big, and cannot easily be replaced. Both from a psychological/marketing and design/developement point of view.
Comments
Despite being a film company Kodak made one of the first digital backs for SLRs and has made many models of consumer point and shoot digital cameras. No different than Fuji they could have done well in that space
I wouldn't call Kodak or Fuji "successful" in camera business but then again I'm more of a pro than amateur. (And yes I had Fuji DSLR once before Nikon got their shit together with D70. How time had flied.)
What RED doing is amazing. From my 20 years experience with Kodak I don't think they have a chance to do something like that (they're just too arrogant or too ambitious).
Poor Kodak... it's much more beleaguered than RIM.
I'd say for Kodak we can break out words like doomed.
There is a difference here. Kodak developed these patents, they didn't buy them to milk other corporations but now that they are practically done as a going concern they may as well take advantage of what little they have left.
Agreed, Kodak doesn't fit the definition of a patent troll. This doesn't mean it's patents are valid, but Kodak didn't buy these patents off somebody just for the purpose of hiding in the dark and popping out to surprise would be makers of successful products demanding payment.
I remember when Polaroid went after Kodak for developing instant film tech. Kodak lost. (Polaroid's value in 1976 - $800 million / Kodak - $5 billion)
Edwin Land said at the beginning of this patent battle:
"We took nothing from anybody. We gave a great deal to the world. The only thing keeping us alive is our brilliance. The only thing that keeps our brilliance alive is our patents."
It's strange. Though late to the game, they should have at least been able to get into smartphone camera tech or especially digital SLR camera tech. Digital film and 3D as well.
Kodaks actually owns one of the Japanesse camera companies. Unfortunately it is primarily focused on point and shoot. If you know of any camera shops point and shoot is on hard times itself due to cell phones.
Locally I believe they spun off one of their lens replication businesses. What you need to realize is that Kodaks has or had lots of little businesses but none of them added up to a film business especially where profitability is concerned.
Maybe they were crippled by the very thing they epitomised: preserving memories and hanging on to the past.
They where crippled, for a long time, by management that couldn't grasp how quickly film was going to come to an end. They where very much use to strong arm control over the film market. I use to be into film photography and could tell a story or two about Kodaks and it's attitude towards the market and competition.
Beyond that I'm left with the impression that if you where in management and brought up the obvious about digital you wouldn't be around long at Kodaks. Things have changed now but there was apparently an attitude within management at Kodaks that film was not going anywhere soon. In retrospect we can see that a 100 years of film success was demolished in less than a decade of digital availability.
But they have been producing digital cameras although nowhere near Nikon and Canon that transitioned very successfully.
They are still in the camera business but as noted they went after their traditional high volume markets with point and shoot. However camera phones have beaten that market to death. Nikon and Cannon are also suffering in that market thus the focus on higher end hardware. In a way this reflects the same mistake seen in film, they mis judged how fast the market would evaporate.
Patent shopping is only going to make everyone think they're really desperate and company morale could drop significantly.
Moral drop even more! Ha ha. Locally they had like 50-60,000 people employed, now I believe they are down to less than 5000. That cut in employment doesn't include all the closed plants around the world.
Frankly they are desperate and wall street knows it. Even if they can win a suit or two here or there the cash they will receive is trivial. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in Penney stock territory soon.
Not sure why their Cloud stuff hasn't taken off as well:
http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery/welcome.jsp
Not knowing how to market it for one. Plus everyone wants the cloud to be free. Beyond that some of the reasons people think the cloud will succeed are BS anyways. There are many inherent problems with the cloud that many don't want to deal with.
Can someone explain what exactly happened to Kodak?
Exactly nope that isn't possible. However the big mistake in my mind was nit recognizing how quickly film would die and then selling off business units to support a failing business. Kodaks was a huge company made up of a bunch of supporting businesses. In retrospect it probably would gave made more sense to focus on those businesses. For example they sold off Eastman Chemicals, a Goverment contracting business(spy hardware), a battery business, medical diagnostic and a bunch of other little businesses. In the end a lot of stuff ended up pruned from the company for one reason or another to try to shore up photography and specifically film.
While none of these businesses had the potential to replace the profits that film had, many of them are still viable on going ventures. Some established and some more startup like. I should look and see if there is a list of on going spin offs, ventures and the like as a result of Kodaks "realignment". Locally there are more than a few. Some independent others absorbed by other companies.
Kodaks itself has gotten into a number of different fields to try to build the company back up. Apparently wall street doesn't think much of these businesses. In any event I don't follow Kodaks much at all anymore. Oh don't Roget that they still have a few ongoing business units built up on their own. Last I knew the guys doing CCDs where doing well.
As an aside the area around Kodak parks looks like a Mini Detroit. Even the strip joints and bars closed down.
Kodak had many options, regretfully there were internal conflicts, mostly between the film department and "everyone else". They saw film as king and didn't evolve, even as other departments were trying to develop new products including cameras, but the film departments squashed many of the ideas claiming other departments weren't "good enough" to take precedence over what kodak did best... film. They were afraid to divert money from film and now they have nothing to sell. Even tiffen makes digital "filters" these days.
That sums up one big issue with Kodaks melt down. The people with the least chance of success had the most influence.
Although, doesn't Kodak also hold some rather juicy OLED patents as well?
Yes they do. However after billions invested around the world nobody has a OLED screen that lasts.
They should have done something cool like RED, because frankly RED is so dependent on their "cool" image they fail to innovate the way other larger companies with more money can. A new product from them is like waiting for paint to dry under the sea.
Last I knew one of Kodaks more successful on going businesses is their CCD production facility. The problem with doing something like RED is that it is a trivial business compared to film. The death of film at Kodak can be likened to a stripper that realizes she is to old to dance anymore. All of a sudden all that money is gone and the options she is left with don't even come close to bringing in the cash she is use too. The profits from film simply dwarfed anything else that Kodak had going.
Everyone has the chance to reinvent themselves, hell look at the one company everyone is suing now, because they not only reinvented themselves but they did and are continuing to do one hell of a (Steve) job at it.
It's a bad case of "Keep up or Fall behind"
... and that's as simple as it needs to get.
Kodak couldn't reinvent itself. Very few companies can. Many are big enough that they can survive in a smaller capacity, but quite a few just disappear.
Kodak's corporate culture (as is the case with most companies... and humans for that matter) will not allow themselves to move outside their box... disaster can follow as easily as just doing nothing. Sort of like when you get a guy who sells sugar water to run a computer company... it does quite well for a while but then the guy has nothing more to offer than marketing, no innovation, and the company runs into trouble.
People who can innovate (and market) do things like turn a computer company into a phone company.
Would anyone buy a cell phone because it has "Kodak technology inside"? Does anyone under the age of 40 think that a Kodak digital point and shoot is anything other than a quaint old person's affectation, or that their printers have anything to offer over HP or Canon?
They've managed to link their brand to obsolescence, down market lowered expectations and failure. "Kodak" has all the cachet of "Remington-Rand" trying to make computers. It's a real shame, because Kodak was a great American company, but they had the misfortune of operating in a market that was utterly transformed by technology and which continues to transform at a rapid pace. Just kind of hanging out on your laurels for 20 years or so while all that was going on leaves you looking like an artifact from another century-- which in fact they are.
Edwin Land said at the beginning of this patent battle:
"We took nothing from anybody. We gave a great deal to the world. The only thing keeping us alive is our brilliance. The only thing that keeps our brilliance alive is our patents."
That pretty much sums up the purpose of patents. It is so much easier and less costly to copy an idea somebody else came up. Absent protection, the copier puts the copied at a disadvantage because the copied has to pay for the research cost while the copier generally does not.
On the other hand as this story shows, often ideas are much older than the 'originators' think.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07...ery/print.html
That sums up one big issue with Kodaks melt down. The people with the least chance of success had the most influence.
Yes they do. However after billions invested around the world nobody has a OLED screen that lasts.
Last I knew one of Kodaks more successful on going businesses is their CCD production facility. The problem with doing something like RED is that it is a trivial business compared to film. The death of film at Kodak can be likened to a stripper that realizes she is to old to dance anymore. All of a sudden all that money is gone and the options she is left with don't even come close to bringing in the cash she is use too. The profits from film simply dwarfed anything else that Kodak had going.
I kinda thought so. Had a few acquaintances that worked up there too. Too bad too. As if NY needs another empty facility... I live not too far from IBM's old facilities in Poughkeesie and to the north of us in Kingston. To this day they are still vacant and some of them lay in ruin; collapsing roofs and all. It kills me to know one of the world most advanced chip plants is unused.
Another thing we don't need upstate is another aging stripper either.
I wonder if these companies hadn't been so poorly run how that would have effected industry (the economy) in the states.
But like you say, so much of that decimated in a decade. A bitter pill for everyone involved to swallow. Maybe it is indeed true that you reap what you sow.
I kinda thought so. Had a few acquaintances that worked up there too. Too bad too. As if NY needs another empty facility... I live not too far from IBM's old facilities in Poughkeesie and to the north of us in Kingston. To this day they are still vacant and some of them lay in ruin; collapsing roofs and all. It kills me to know one of the world most advanced chip plants is unused.
I wonder if these companies hadn't been so poorly run how that would have effected industry (the economy) in the states.
For the USA I don't think it was mismanagement as much as complacency. Yeah, there were some real screw ups and scandals but in most cases some companies just fell behind, which is I guess a natural and important part of capitalism, except for the unfortunate side effect of unemployment and entire towns having the life sucked out of them.
The challenge in the US is that due to the scale of the domestic economy alone companies can become big real fast but also drop off the cliff extremely fast too.
It's interesting that you mention IBM, I was just in a small-ish brand-new IBM building here in Malaysia. Only thing is they're not making chips, they're doing outsourced call centre services.
It must be difficult for Americans to see decay in their own backyards as their own companies invest oodles of cash overseas.
RED is a boutique company that makes a really cool but expensive (though for their market space far less expensive than traditional film cameras) line of digital video cameras. Kodak probably spent more on legal fees for their patent lawsuits than RED has made in the last 3 years. Emulating RED is probably not a wise place for them to go. But, Kodak does have experience in the digital camera space. Despite being a film company Kodak made one of the first digital backs for SLRs and has made many models of consumer point and shoot digital cameras. No different than Fuji they could have done well in that space if they would have stayed competitive but instead they have seceded market share to Canon and others who use their high-end brand appeal to entice consumers to buy their branded gear.
Kodak needs to quickly figure out how to take what it knows about film and apply it to the digital world. Maybe they can figure out a way to apply analog qualities to digital imaging allowing it to break the megapixel barrier and give you total dynamic range and resolution independence. Build a camera around that and you may have a whole new following.
As you hinted, the cameras are costly, but only in terms of comparison with run of the mill consumer video cameras. One must compare the RED cameras with both high-end 35 mm movie cameras and other high-end digital video cameras. In that comparison, they are inexpensive and their quality is excellent. Peter Jackson is using twin RED Epics for the new 3-D Hobbit films and they should provide for some amazing footage. I understand those films will also be projected at a higher frame rate of 48 frames per second (fps), which should alleviate some of the motion sickness typically associated with the usual 24 fps exhibition standard for 3-D films (and just for the record, James Cameron is planning on the same thing for the next Avatar movies).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...vfrxEMJNeN4i_w
Everyone has the chance to reinvent themselves, hell look at the one company everyone is suing now, because they not only reinvented themselves but they did and are continuing to do one hell of a (Steve) job at it.
It's a bad case of "Keep up or Fall behind"
And that may very well be Apple's downfall. Steve's part in the company is too big, and cannot easily be replaced. Both from a psychological/marketing and design/developement point of view.