> but I don’t think anyone could have saved say, Kodak
Why not? What if Kodak management had went hard on digital initially instead of clinging to film for so long?
Why not? What if Kodak management had went hard on digital initially instead of clinging to film for so long?
They missed by not innovating fast enough compared to the competition, not by ignoring the market.
Unimaginative management was very definitely a problem - although to be fair, it's easy with hindsight to say they should have started developing digital much earlier, when in reality consumer digital photography only started to make commercial sense when computers and public networking became powerful enough to support it.
That didn't happen until the later 90s. Until then, most computers lacked the photo quality displays we take for granted now.
Management is responsible for the strategy and long term success of a business. Pivots are necessary and a core part of successful strategies.
The "camera design" portion of kodak isn't where the primary bloodbath happened. The bloodbath happened when film died.
In other words, kodak the company may have thrived, but only by shedding huge portions of its workforce and retooling.
I guess if all you care about is stock value, then sure, Kodak could've pulled it off. But for the folks on the ground, the bloodbath would've happened either way.