It is hard to believe nowadays, but a few decades ago, Kodak was so dominant in the photography industry that the company's name was synonymous with the image itself — the "Kodak moment." So, why is the company a shell of its former self today? This neat video takes a look at some of the major milestones in the company's history and why, despite being at the forefront of the industry at one point, they are almost totally irrelevant today.
Coming to you from snappiness, this great video takes a look at the history of Kodak and how it slowly became irrelevant in the photo industry. It is incredible to think that Kodak was the company that invented the digital camera, but it was that invention where they arguably first took a major misstep. In 1975, when that first digital camera was made, film ruled the world, and Kodak was hesitant to cut into their lucrative film business. And so, the company essentially tabled the digital camera, leaving other companies time to catch up and surpass Kodak's accomplishments. By the time the company realized the need to get competitive on the digital side of things, it was essentially too late. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
We also covered Kodak history, but I don't buy the often-repeated argument that they chose to ignore digital cameras to extend the life of their film business. Kodak made SO MANY consumer and pro digital cameras. They partnered with both Canon AND Nikon to make some of the first DSLRs.
My take is they built a business around having a literal monopoly in film processing, and that monopoly degraded the corporation's ability to innovate, as I've also seen with Microsoft's legal monopoly and even Apple's near-monopoly. They saw digital coming, did everything they could to produce popular digital cameras, but Kodak had grown lazy and couldn't compete with the more innovative Japanese companies at their peak.
Yeah, good take. I used their first Nikon digital cameras, one a monochrome version and one using a color filter wheel and at the time (around 1990), that was IT. Then when HD appeared, they spent a LOT of money on comparison videos between poorly shot HD, digital betacam, and 35mm film. I'm really not sure why they ever bothered with digital cameras in the first place if they weren't going to develop that technology. Did they actually believe it wasn't the future of imaging? My guess is poor management at some level which wasn't uncommon at Eastman Kodak.
For a period of time Eastman Kodak was one of the top 10 worst polluters in the country, dumping millions of pounds of hexavalent chromium into the Genesee River. When tech hipsters wax poetic about film and its supposed advantages over present day digital alternatives, all I can do is cringe my brains out.
What a superficial and lazy review of the issues at Kodak. "Snappiness" couldn't even take the time to learn to pronounce Steve Sasson's name correctly. How could he call Fujifilm a "relatively new" competitor in the 1990s when Fujifilm was established in 1934 and had been selling film and paper in the United States since the 1970s?
One thing he neglected to mention, for example, is that as part of its bankruptcy process, Kodak sold many of its digital photography patents, which are still in use today in with other companies, including Apple, Google, etc. You're using Kodak technology every day and don't know it.
I did an interview with former Kodak executives from that era that describes the challenges and successes, warts and all, here: https://youtu.be/levNsNaxzy8?si=ukeo_t6m1080Pbdf
Back when Kodak was King, I and my colleagues in nature photogrpahy shot hundreds and thousands of rolls of Kodachrome. We begged the company for faster film and all they offered was Ektachrome (Ektacrummy.) and largely blew off requests for better processing. Film porcessing was terrible under “Kodalux” and all the ruined images with blue dots and scratches was our fault if we complained. “Dirt in the camera back,” they said. Finally, along came Fuji who gave us what we wanted and needed, a faster, fine grained film, which ate rapidly into Kodak’s monopoly. We laughed outloud when we heard Kodak mouthpieces testifying before Congress that Fuji had an unfair trade advantage and uttered the usual Japanese-bashing nonsense that Chrysler made famous in the 80’s. The only thing unfair was production of a superior product. (Years after Kodak’s decline I met a former Kodak exec who admitted that Kodak’s big mistake was arrogance and admitted knowing about their deplorable film processing.) in my opinion, Kodak got what they deserved by being unresponsive to their users and customers.
This article brings back some great memories. I purchased my 1st digital camera over 22 years ago, a Kodak DC4800. At the time, it was great - a whopping 3.34 megapixel sensor, 28mm-84mm zoom lens and a maximum resolution of 2160x1440. It has long passed away but I took it to my 1st trip to Monument Valley and the Grand Canyon. I still have the images on my storage drive. It was great to have. I became hooked and have been using digital cameras of various forms since then. If Kodak did not run into financial troubles and continued to make quality digital cameras no telling what the camera market would now be.
Living in Rochester, having worked at Kodak and Wegmans (a northeast grocery store that once had 1-hour processing) I think I can offer a unique perspective. Worked at both for 4 years each. Wegmans stocked the first retail versions of their digital cameras, along with Olympus and another. They were terrible. I was the manager of the photo lab, so I dealt with all the customer issues. The largest one was that the Kodak cameras would only take, literally, 12 shots on a new set of high-end AA batteries, and the batteries would be drained. The prints, at 300 dpi (standard photo print) would be the size of a postage stamp. At least the other brands last about 2X longer with batteries and could produce a larger size photo. Nobody wanted them. People wanted to love them, but I mean…jeez. Then came their APS system. Basically, trying to push small film size to its absolute limits in enlargements, and offering these quasi-panos. You had to send those rolls in, and they would come back at like $50 plus for 24 prints. It was a rip off.
Kodak also had its hand into film processing machines I understand, but they were crappy too, as Noritsu ate their lunch.
That’s two areas they should have owned.
We stocked Kodak film, because we were in Rochester, and of course that was THE brand. We brought in Fuji film and it was selling for a lower price, people bought it and were happy with it.
While at Kodak, I thought the management was crap. They didn’t care about pricing or product, because they were Kodak, a Blue Chip brand, so they could do whatever they wanted. They rested on their laurels, as the saying goes. We would get not only one hour lunch’s, but one hour “personal development” times. It was just a perk. It was just a lazy way to manage a place. I actually felt guilty for all the time off.
Now Kodak is a just this little company, making some film still, as I understand, but no where near what it once was.