The Online Photographer

And they somehow also develop new sensors for cameras.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Expands_Image_Sensor_Options_for_High_Performance_Imaging.htm

This very sad to witness. I grew up in the shadow of the Big Yellow Box. During the early and midterm years of my pro career, I made lots of pictures for Kodak, some for their how-to books, some displayed in the Kodak Gallery in NYC, and hundreds of other commercial assignments.

During that time I was witness some spectacular corporate mistakes and even had a one-on-one speak-your-mind with a Kodak VP marketing director (professional products division) after Kodak's head in-house legal adviser overheard me and an art director complaining (in a local watering hole) about a Kodak marketing project we were working on - the product manager was hopelessly trapped in a very conservative 1960s marketing frame of mind. This was shortly after Kodak literally gave away (to Fuji) the official film sponsorship to the LA Summer Olympics and we all know how well that turned out.

While many of Kodak's mistakes can be traced to their policy of only promoting from with the organization (in worst cases, a form of corporate inbreeding), the real problems started when Kodak first went outside for a CEO. A CEO who decided Kodak would no longer make things - subcontracting as much product manufacturing as possible - but instead would become a marketing organization under the Kodak name/brand.

FYI, at one time the current CEO of Kodak, who started in the mail room, lived in my relatively modest middle income neighborhood and was often seen dring to work in his Pinto. Perhaps that was a sign of the flaming wreck to come.

PS - poor George must be spinning in his grave like a high-speed emulsion coating machine (most of which are also in their graves).

Looks like a bust-out to me. I wonder if there's a Woodford somewhere in Kodak.

Do none of these companies have a wise old uncle who would tell them, "NEVER TOUCH PRINCIPAL !!!" ??? And now they're spinning off the profitable parts of the company to sustain the marginal busiess? Amazing. Even a freelance photographer knows better.....

Kodak wants to transition to a completely digital company, so they sell off the sensor division.

Can someone, preferably someone at Kodak, please explain this logic?

It's going to look like At&T - alive in name only.

With zero attachment to the brand, and no fond memories to relate to, it hard to get worked up about this at all. I'm reminded of The Band's Unfaithful Servant: "... But the good ole days, they're all gone."

And I hope I don't own any stock via a fund or other.

It can't be a good sign when you start selling off the *healthy* bits of your business to stay afloat.

Here's hoping that I like the results from the roll of HP5+ I just finished. Too much uncertainty around Kodak's future just when I'm settling into sticking with one film type and getting to know it properly.

Tim,

Kodak presumably needs to raise cash in order to stave off bankruptcy in order to make itself attractive to companies such as Google that would buy it for its patent portfolio.

In other words, re-arranging deck chairs.

Dear folks,

I'd be surprised if Kodak isn't just a dead corporation walking.

I've written about their history the number of times on The Online Photographer, so I'll keep this very brief. I don't think their massive strategic missteps in the 1980s had much effect on the digital future; it just cost them their primacy in the “analog” photography world. They were really, really stupid.

But they weren't stupid about digital. They figured out in the early 1980s it was going to be important and starting then they tried a whole string of initiatives that would position them well in that market. They all failed for one reason or another. Some of the reasons were foreseeable, some only with 20-20 hindsight. Regardless, they tried establishing a position in almost every aspect of that industry, and many of their products were excellent. But none of them were market successes for very long and none of them achieved the strategic goal.

Probably their most successful effort was the DCS line of premium digital cameras, a market the Kodak used to essentially own. The DCS 14n debacle destroyed that market. And that WAS a massive screwup on their part. The unexpectedly rapid collapse of the film market in the same short time frame probably sealed their fate back then, barring really brilliant management and long-term strategy. Both of which were sorely lacking at Kodak by that point.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

"Kodak wants to transition to a completely digital company, so they sell off the sensor division.

Can someone, preferably someone at Kodak, please explain this logic?"

Well, I'm not at Kodak, but I can see Kodak Park from here (insert Sarah Palin voice here,) and work in a former Kodak building in Gates.

It looks to me like they want to primarily be a digital output company, concentrating on digital presses, which are higher margin products.

As for the other comment, about Xerox, I think they're way smarter than Kodak, at least now. I've never worked for Kodak, but I've worked for Xerox and my wife works there now. Yeah, they have a lot of coulda-shoulda-wouldas but they are now pretty stable. Knock on wood.

I am late to this party, but here is an excellent presentation on Kodak as it anticipated and tried to deal with the digital era:

http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/kodak-destruction

While obviously mistakes were made, I think the fundamental problem (as ctein stated) is not that Kodak didn't anticipate digital imaging, but that their core strengths simply didn't translate to the digital era.