pendennis

To the OP's question, Kodak is no different that thousands of other companies who had a long run, but they are/were never destined to last forever. While Kodak was quite diversified in its history, diversity is not enough to insure survival. Just look at IBM, GE, and a myriad of others, who've had long successful runs, but are not going to survive forever.

Kodak's path forward, from the late 1800's dwelt on wet chemical photography. While they diversified into lenses, cameras, copiers, publishing, etc., their prime directive was film; film is a dying medium. It's dying because it's not growing. Lack of growth will eventually doom a company. Since the onset of digital, Kodak has not led in the field of imaging. Their chemical film processing is, at best, toxic. Remember, Kokachrome, one of the great film emulsions, could not be processed withing today's environmental laws. They've only re-introduced Ektachrome, but only in a limited release. Their effort is a boutique offering, at most.

Their ultimate death will only be an evolutionary occurrence in the growth of technology.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Kodak, just like RCA and other notable names from the past, is no longer a manufacturer it is only a name which is being prostituted by Eastman. Attempts to connect it with the company, and its quality, that bore the name in the past is underhanded and deceitful.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Sure, Peter … if you scroll down the page in that first link - I think you'll find there are over 30 models, currently …

I've had my eye on a couple of those, for a while - the AZ901 for me (was around before the Nikon Coolpix P1000) and the red one (at Wal-Mart) for my lady …

Not quite the reach of the P1000 - but it beats the P900 handily … 22mm on the wide end - times 90x - converts to 1980mm (compared to a 35mm film camera, or digital full-frame) … but, still - that's fantastic!!!!

And I bet it does it better than the P1000 too. I've read it's tough to get a non-blurred image at that length, handheld. Don't think Kodak would lend their name to something that couldn't!

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Don't think Kodak would lend their name to something that couldn't!
Eastman is selling the rights to use the name of a now defunct company. If the product is inferior or not only concerns them as far as the company using the name is able peddle that product and pay the royalty charges.

Bravo44

As a Rochester resident for over 30 years, I watched Kodak go from 145,000 employees worldwide to around 6000 today. In their heyday there were incredibly innovative and talented scientists there (look at their patent history - most now sold) who created platforms for major advances in healthcare, imaging etc as well as traditional photography. The issue was a management and board without future vision, and that could not bring themselves to adopt a strategy of transformation and evolution to the future and instead clung to the (once) highly profitable film business as the world transformed itself before their eyes.
I never worked at Kodak but it was painful to watch Kodak squander such a talented workforce and an outstanding worldwide brand and instead keep their heads in the sand while competitors built business that are still thriving and evolving today. A sad and pathetic story of (almost) utter business failure.
[ Footnote: many former Kodak employees have gone on to contribute strongly to other large companies or have formed startups, and a number of those new companies are emerging as viable tech companies. ]

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Rich - I seem to remember reading somewhere that the first digital cameras produced - were made by Kodak, and that the glass on them was Nikon's …

There's a lot of sharing in the digital camera industry - Sony makes the sensors for all but Canon … and so on, and so forth … does it really matter?

Then, there's the old thing about cameras actually made in Japan or in the USA (in the case of Kodak and Argus) … turns out most of them are made in the Philippines, China, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.

Does it really matter? … One buys a camera, partly, for the name that's on it - but, mostly - for the features - doesn't one?

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

It totally matters in this thread since it is about "What ever happened to Kodak".

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

you are right !

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Look at the reaction to my post; a lot of interest and passion. What a way to start the new year !!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Defunct, Rich? … Come on!!! … They still make up half the city of Rochester, New York (Xerox owns the other half!) … they still sell film (Ektachrome has now been reintroduced) but they probably won't reintroduce Kodachrome (shame!) since that process requires their handiwork, and I suppose their heart is no longer in it … plus chemicals and paper … I don't think they're going anywhere, anytime soon!!!

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

i mentioned how Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center, their R&D arm) invented the GUI and mouse interface that prompted Steve Jobs to create the Mac; the comments here are much the same as those made in that case as well.

In his book "The Innovator's Dilemma" Clayton Christensen coined the term "disruptive innovation" and shows examples in various industries where this same thing has happened. In essence, the issue is that management, fearing what they perceive as the golden egg-laying goose will be harmed by their new invention, shuns it and that allows others with less to lose the chance to take advantage. And so it will likely be going forward with all things technological.

Zooman 1

I had heard that there was a single Kodak board member who convinced Kodak to stay with film as digital was only a passing fad. Don't know if it is true or not.

sidpearce

According to my cousin who was a secretary at Kodak. The company decided that for them to go fully digital would have killed their film business!!!!!!!!!!!!

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Interestingly, Kodak (along with the photo industry in general) is also used an an example of how technology impacts the middle class - namely, reducing it. Back in the day, tens of thousands of folks were employed in the analog photo industry, from the chemists and engineers at Kodak. Agfa et al to the workers at the gaggles of photo development labs to the clerks at the photo kiosks found in many shopping center parking lots. In the decades since the first camera, it was estimated that 1 billion photos were taken altogether.

Then, digital technology. Something like 3 billion or more photos have been taken in the past decade and shown on Instagram and Snapchat, etc. And while the dozen or so folks who created those sites are billionaires, the technology obviated the need for all those workers in the middle layers - thus the reduced middle class (when take across all kinds of industrial fields).

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I'm glad you brought it up as there are a lot of users being hoodwinked. Even the new film releases by Kodak Alaris are produced by an independent mfg. Check the bottom of their ads for the licensing note. From reading reviews (I no longer use film) it is a good product made using Kodak recipes but, it is not Kodak per se.