The story of Kodak missing the digital era because of medium-term concerns is a pivotal event in my conception of the inadequacies of public companies and their human guidance to deliver fundamental change that conflicts with the current model, but betters the world for everyone.
-
-
I mean my guess would by for general electronics companies like sony/samsung it's one of many low rev departments guarded by precedent
-
canon/nikon can't be doing well unless printing/optics businesses respectively sustain them. phones cannibalized everything besides niche hoppy/pro market
-
and phone sensors are commodity hardware rather than products. and professional photographers are a dwindling breed anyhow
-
my point is just I don't think it's a clear "short-sighted and missed out, shoulda innovated!" narrative
-
because it is true that the innovation they feared to unleash actually did destroy their industry
-
Interesting perspective, thank you Alice.
-
incidentally I also did b&w photog/darkroom developing and loved it, v rewarding experience
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Apple’s doing ok
-
My comment was a little glib but there’s a serious element here: Kodak became irrelevant because they were too invested in remaining a “camera company” rather than a “digital camera company”. Apple made a zillion dollars by making an iPod that can make phone calls.
-
Maybe if Kodak had made a “polaroid that can play mp3s” the whole thing would have played out a little differently. Assuming market categories are static is exactly the problem, not refusing to accept innovation in some fixed designated category.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
go pro is doing very well...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.