Kodak could have been at the forefront of Digital cameras as they’d created the first one for NASA. Instead they chose to stick to film. Some companies innovate and some companies die.
I had a Kodak 5mp digital camera many years ago when that size sensor was new.
Great camera.
It’s called “The Innovators Dilemma” by Prof. Christensen of Haavahd. On on e had, incumbents like Kodak had all the resources, talent, and market position to be the leaders with the new digital technology. But on the other hand, every measurement, incentive, and expectation from the Board and shareholders on down was to maximize profits doing what they had always done.
Sometimes incumbent companies are able to reinvent themselves and launch on a new growth curve. But more often than not - especially in high tech industries - the incumbent companies go down the wrong path, and new innovative companies rise up on that next growth curve.
If not, we’d be typing on Gateway computers, with Shugart hard drives inside and connected to Epson Printers and NEC monitors, running the 64 bit version of OS/2.
Actually , Kodak is experiencing a resurgence in film production and usage.
There are many movie producers that are returning to large rolls of film as they can do more artistic creativity on film that is only moderately successful with digital.
So, they are redeveloping their niche in the 'artsy-fartsy' world; not sure that it will be enough to sustain the production of an era gone bye, but it's a restart.
You are right that they didn't do a timely jump into digital photography, and they paid dearly for it !
The effect is known as the Innovator's Dilemma, and there's a book on it.
Basically, established businesses that have a cash-cow such as film refuse to adapt new technology that would take business away from their existing cash cow.
...so Kodak wouldn't push digital because that would have eroded marketshare (scavenged) from their film biz.
Something similar is happening in many other fields. For example, MakeSpace sends bar-coded bins to your house for you to pack, then they pick up the bins, photograph the contents, store it all centrally in one giant warehouse with everyone else, and let you see/recall your stored items back to your house.
Their competition is old...the established mini-storage sites in every city. Well, the mini-storage guys don't want to offer bar-coded, centralized storage, pickup, and delivery because that would scavenge business from their individual storage units.
Newspapers also fought going digital online because that scavenged subscribers from their print biz.
Blockbuster didn't want to stream movies online because that would have taken customers from their video-rental biz.
Of course, the problem with defending the old business is that the new way can knock a company completely out of business if it doesn't adapt. Xerox. Kodak. Heck, try to name a fax-machine company.
“nstead they chose to stick to film. Some companies innovate and some companies die.”
Strange. I have a 2MB Kodak digital camera from 1998. I used it for 6 years before replacing it with a 5MB Samsung Digimax. Maybe it was the CF memory cards they used?
I think Kodak simply died from bloated, ineffective, intransigent management -which is what happens with many American tech company failures.