Why Fujifilm marches on as Kodak flounders!

[varjag]

I don't give a damn about Fuji or Kodak outside of film production really. Fuji is getting out of film business too, couldn't care less if they'd still innovate in business of digicams, egg cookers or singing toilet seats.

 

[varjag]

If Kodak were run by salesmen they'd be more profitable than Apple.

Salesmen had their turn at running Apple, and nearly drove it into the ground.

 

[sevo]

I really think the systematic flaw of Kodak already started with to George Eastman. The one thing he really invented was the notion of cheap devices (or rather, devices sold at no profit or even at a loss, to get users into the system - Kodak cameras weren't always low quality) that require expensive consumables. This does only work out as long as you can tie the latter to the former. With 35mm film, Kodak lost control, and never really regained it - 620, 127, 110, Disc and APS all marked a long downward spiral in Kodak's attempts to proprietarize formats.

The ascent of 35mm, with the Japanese SLR, point-and-shoot and disposables booms washed huge amounts of cash into Kodak's account - but that made Kodak forget that they had lost control and were driven rather than a driving force...

 

[wray]

Um-m-m and some of their future licensing litigation might just come a cropper since apparently some of their early digital patents are co-owned with Apple!

 

[aad]

Salesmen had their turn at running Apple, and nearly drove it into the ground.

Really? I thought Steve Jobs did very well-salesman of the decade. It was the MBAs who nearly killed it.

 

[varjag]

Jobs was a keen inventor, first and foremost. It's a bit outside of your typical "sales-driven vs marketing-driven" business dichotomy, and perhaps the reason Apple was such a remarkable success.