Kodak Failing, But Camera Phones Not To Blame

An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from The Conversation: "According to the Wall Street Journal, camera manufacturer Kodak is preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, following a long struggle to maintain any sort of viable business. The announcement has prompted some commentators to claim that Kodak's near-demise has been brought on by: a failure to innovate, or a failure to anticipate the shift from analogue to digital cameras, or a failure to compete with the rise of cameras in mobile phones. Actually, none of these claims are true. Where Kodak did fail is in not understanding what people take photographs for, and what they do with photos once they have taken them." Continues the reader: "Looking at camera data from Flickr, of images uploaded in 2011, camera phones only make up 3% of the total. Dedicated cameras from Canon, Nikon and yes, Kodak were used to take 97% of the images. What Kodak failed to understand is that people have switched from taking photos for remembering and commemorative reasons to using photos for identity and communication. The shift changes the emphasis away from print to social media platforms and dedicated apps."

Re:bad data source

[cultiv8]

What Kodak shoulda done is patented their technology, that's how you create something and then not innovate but yet profit from it. *runs, ducks*

Re:bad data source

[rrohbeck]

Should've bribed more politicians so patents can get extended like copyright.

Re:Poor analysis - its film not the camera itself

[kurt555gs]

Just like "sexting" replaced Polaroid.

Re:bad data source

[sunspot42]

over one beeeellion dollars

That joke wasn't very funny when a painfully unfunny Canadian made it in a teeth grindingly unfunny movie 10+ years ago even though there it was at least in context. It hasn't matured with age to become funny since then.

Oh, behave!

Re:Poor analysis - its film not the camera itself

[Maow]

Then again Xerox had a similar kind of problem trying to stay relevant over the years, where it could have owned the PC market with the devices built at their PARC research group but instead let Apple Computer (in the form of Steve Jobs) essentially copy all of their ideas and build the Macintosh.

Channelling /. user [slashdot.org] bonch [slashdot.org] 'cause I cannot help myself:

There comes a point where it's obvious that other companies are liberally borrowing from Jonathan Ive's design shop at Apple.

[...]

I realize Slashdot comments tend to have an Apple slant (to put it mildly), but come on, this is completely obvious "inspiration" from Apple.

[...]

I think what really goes on here is that some people just don't want to give Apple credit for anything, and they hate when people do credit them, so when comparisons between designs are pointed out, it pisses them off and they make snarky remarks about "rounded rectangles."

So, don't you see? Xerox copied ideas from Ive's and Jobs' future! Why, oh why won't you at least give them credit where credit is due, Slashdot?

Re:Poor analysis - its film not the camera itself

[swalve]

Actually, an easy way to see an impossible color is to watch the David Letterman show. On his set, there are a number of things painted in a burgandy/maroon color. If you let that color burn into the retina for a while, when you close your eyes, you get a blue green that's just awesome.

Re:Poor analysis - its film not the camera itself

[kilfarsnar]

Maybe he works at Kodak.