# George Eastman's Kodak dream is over



## pwp (Jan 19, 2012)

So it has come to this. Here's Kodaks official page on the Chapter 11 plus PDN & DP Review editorial.

http://www.kodaktransforms.com/
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Kodak-Files-for-Bank-4397.shtml
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/19/Kodak_Chapter11_Bankruptcy

If you have read the best selling Steve Jobs biography he talks about his desire to bring art and technology together; witness the exquisite industrial design of all current Apple products and the commitment to bring creative functions via software and functionality within reach of the maximum number of users. And all this wrapped up in an extremely viable business model.

George Eastman, the founder of Kodak was probably the Steve Jobs of his day with an equal desire to Jobs to bring art and current technology together in the form of the first widely available, inexpensive camera. Like Jobs he changed the world. 

Our future has more George Eastmans & Steve Jobs in waiting. I can't wait to see what they come up with.

Paul Wright


----------



## gmrza (Jan 20, 2012)

pwp said:


> So it has come to this. Here's Kodaks official page on the Chapter 11 plus PDN & DP Review editorial.
> 
> http://www.kodaktransforms.com/
> http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Kodak-Files-for-Bank-4397.shtml
> ...



It is indeed sad that Kodak didn't manage to adapt to the digital era. There is a nice piece on the Economist comparing Kodak and Fuji's reactions to the digital era: http://www.economist.com/node/21542796. Kodak totally missed the changes that happened in the photography value chain, because it was so used to the fact that people used to spend more money on film, processing and printing than on cameras.


----------



## karminator (Jan 20, 2012)

pwp said:


> So it has come to this. Here's Kodaks official page on the Chapter 11 plus PDN & DP Review editorial.
> 
> http://www.kodaktransforms.com/
> http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Kodak-Files-for-Bank-4397.shtml
> ...



Well said. +1


----------



## karminator (Jan 20, 2012)

gmrza said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > So it has come to this. Here's Kodaks official page on the Chapter 11 plus PDN & DP Review editorial.
> ...



Yes, back in the day, it was almost worth Kodak giving the camera away because it drives film and paper sales. Digital turned that upside down and they weren't able to adjust enough.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 20, 2012)

karminator said:


> Yes, back in the day, it was almost worth Kodak giving the camera away because it drives film and paper sales. Digital turned that upside down and they weren't able to adjust enough.



The Gillette business model doesn't work anymore. That favoured the likes of Canon and Nikon who never played in the film/paper business. Of course, I would like to see how Canon and Nikon deal with the fact that smartphones are eating their lunch in the compact camera business.

Now, if only there were a digital solution for razor blades!


----------



## ssrdd (Jan 20, 2012)

Canon will be in the same place one day, with their super marketing techniques.


----------



## pwp (Jan 20, 2012)

gmrza said:


> karminator said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, back in the day, it was almost worth Kodak giving the camera away because it drives film and paper sales. Digital turned that upside down and they weren't able to adjust enough.
> ...



Yep the Gillette model was a goldmine while it was still broadly relevant. The remaining exception would be in the inkjet & laser printer market. 

Paul Wright


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

And a similar approach is starting to take shape with 3D printers as well. Both Z-Corp (3Dsystems now) and Objet are known for offering printers for free if the costumer agrees to buy a certain amount of materials per month.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 20, 2012)

Kodak has not gone away, just like General Motors and Chrysler have not gone away. A bankrupcy can be a tool to shed debt and let a company emerge leaner and stronger. However, all stockholders get nothing, which is a steep penalty for not throwing out the management years ago.


----------



## ronderick (Jan 20, 2012)

gmrza said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > So it has come to this. Here's Kodaks official page on the Chapter 11 plus PDN & DP Review editorial.
> ...



IMHO, I think this sentence from the article is a classic: "Surprisingly, Kodak acted like a stereotypical change-resistant Japanese firm, while Fujifilm acted like a flexible American one."

Despite all the praises for Fujifilm's approach in reinventing itself, it's no way pain-free - especially the cost upon the people that runs the photo-printing business using Fuji equipments. 

I've heard a lot from shop owners (or former owners) about how they spend fortunes setting up their printing system, and at the end of the day, they felt totally helpless when Fujifilm cut the support in this area by leaps and bounds. 

But alas, they're not that important to big corporation anyways :'(


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 20, 2012)

Some things just run their course. But its not surprising. Have Kodak been the leader in anything in the last 20 years? When was the last time they did anything important or were relevant? Is anyone really shocked that Kodak is joining the ranks of Confederated Slaveholdings, Transatlantic Zeppelin, Amalgamated Spats, Congreve's Inflammable Powder, and U.S. Hay?

Kodak lost most film users in the early 90's when most people switched to Fuji Provia, Velvia and Astia. With Superia vs Ultramax, there's probably not much difference, but Superia is usually significantly cheaper. By the time Kodak had something competitive with 100VS people had started to switch to digital or were too familiar with Fuji. For a company that put so much faith in film, why were they so far behind for so long? Why did they pull the pin on digital sensor development? Why did they think people would still keep buying film in developing countries? Why did they decide that a low-cost digital camera strategy was the way forward? How come they weren't better able to use their chemical processing know-how? 

Sadly, I'll miss their T-Max films, of which I've been a happy user for the last few years. But like their other offerings, there are several viable (some would say better) alternatives at cheaper prices.


----------

