SDS Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 What usually happens is that stifled and entrepenurial engineers jump ship, start their own companies that 'get it,' and eventually displace the dinosaurs. The question is: why hasn't Rochester become the startup hub of digital innovation the way San Diego and elsewhere did for digital video? 387313[/snapback] A little thing called "the sun" - or lack thereof - in the Rochester area...
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Circle of life. A person is smart. People are stupid. 387335[/snapback] There's a quote I can't quite remember about how in any meeting with four or more persons the average IQ in the room drops in porportion to the number of people participating...
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 3 Reasons: 1. New York State Government. 2. Monroe County Government. 3. Rochester City Government. 387339[/snapback] Well, that's the point. We can rail against Kodak for being too hidebound to take advantage of the talented workforce, just like people in San Diego railed against General Instruments, people in Boston railed against Wang and Prime computers, etc etc. They went out and started better companies. That's just the arc of business, and I see no reason to blame Kodak - pity maybe, but not blame. We have to fix whatever it is that is prevents people from taking their shots at starting the next generation of businesses rather than stake our economies on successful local businesses always getting it right in the marketplace.
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 A little thing called "the sun" - or lack thereof - in the Rochester area... 387350[/snapback] Yeah, I hear the sunny weather is why Bill Gates and Paul Allen are in Seattle.
Astrobot Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Kodak will rebound. They are a major force now in digital cameras. They still need to trim from their analog sectors to be lean and mean. Perez is a good man, and will turn the company around.
todd Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 We have to fix whatever it is that is prevents people from taking their shots at starting the next generation of businesses rather than stake our economies on successful local businesses always getting it right in the marketplace. 387393[/snapback] It might have something to do with the type of people Kodak has been hiring for years. Not many risk takers. Mostly people who are willing to deal with the corporate drone, and not stick their head up for fear of getting it whacked off. I remember my first year there, I was really trying to get a new project going that would have saved Kodak lots of money, but there would have been an initial investment in development. I was told by more than one person that those who chirp too loud end up getting de-chirped - especially if it was about spending money or pressing for too much change. That's the management culture there.
todd Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Kodak will rebound. They are a major force now in digital cameras. They still need to trim from their analog sectors to be lean and mean. Perez is a good man, and will turn the company around. 387425[/snapback] I hope so. When I was there I compared Kodak's situation to the situation of Microsoft in the mid-90s. The internet was taking off with netscape and everything, and Microsoft was way behind the ball. Microsoft virtually reinvented itself within 6 months, and saved themselves from being completely left behind. Kodak needed to do that with digital at the same time. They didn't. And now you see a tale of two companies and decisions that were made.
Astrobot Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Kodak didn't reinvent itself at that time, but over the next half year they have emerged as the #1 seller of digital cameras.
todd Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Kodak didn't reinvent itself at that time, but over the next half year they have emerged as the #1 seller of digital cameras. 387465[/snapback] Not really. They are #3 worldwide. #1 is some market segments in the US only.
Astrobot Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 "The top digital camera players were Kodak, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, HP, and Nikon, in rank order for U.S. 2004 unit sales. The top three vendors are expected to hold their ranks in 2005." --InfoTrends/CAP Ventures Report , July 2005
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 It might have something to do with the type of people Kodak has been hiring for years. Not many risk takers. Mostly people who are willing to deal with the corporate drone, and not stick their head up for fear of getting it whacked off. I remember my first year there, I was really trying to get a new project going that would have saved Kodak lots of money, but there would have been an initial investment in development. I was told by more than one person that those who chirp too loud end up getting de-chirped - especially if it was about spending money or pressing for too much change. That's the management culture there. 387437[/snapback] That's a very common situation and is in fact a catalyst to startups: young dynamic employees look around and figure out that they have a choice - take the safe drone path and submerge your initiative until you're a VP, or start your own business. Thus healthy behometh companies can actually serve to train and (by way of a counter-example) commit young employees to more entrepenural careers.
bdelma Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 HERE in sunny california businesses are leaving too Why, the cost to do it cheaper.
erynthered Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Fuji film, Asian digital cameras, Toyotas...for whom the bells toll, eh? 386569[/snapback] Geely is next, I wonder if I should grab a franchise. Wanna play?
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 The problem is that Kodak just isn't selling enough film to justify it's manufacturing workforce in that area. It's too bad, but that's what happens when management sucks. What could have been handled by attrition if recognized early enough now has to be done with cuts. 386645[/snapback] It took 28 posts to get to the heart of the matter. It's not globalization...it's timid decisions by the two previous CEOs before Perez. They tried to milk the film business instead of making hard choices years ago when the digital photography era was clearly going to make film obsolete .
Arkady Renko Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 I think that people are having a little too much hindsight bias when it comes to the transition to digital. It was not unusual for Kodak to think that the film business would last a little bit longer than it looks like it will. Many others at the beginning thought so as well. Kodak has actually done surprisingly well in the digital field coming back from behind as they did to now lead the largest market in the world. However, no matter how good Kodak does in digital, they will never have the profits they did in film. No amount of CEO decision-making could have changed that; the industry is just different. Film just has larger profit margins. It may be fashionable to talk about how much more dynamic and innovative small companies are, but this is overstated. Both sizes have their place in the economy. Large ones help improve efficiency due to their scale and most importantly large companies are the only ones that can afford largescale R&D efforts. Your start-ups just exploit a new idea and run with it whether that idea was original to the founders, a university or somewhere else. This is important, but acting like large companies do not play a role in innovation is idiotic. Who makes all the innovations in airplane engines and power plants, oh wait, GE... Finally, where are the start-ups when it comes to digital photography? The other dominant players besides Kodak either were already in the camera industry or were a large, established player in electronics generally. There is pressure to cut huge swath of jobs, sell off patents that can pay off down the line and other things that raise the bottom line in the coming quarters. Sometimes this is a smart move and sometimes it is not. Often, management overreacts during difficult quarters and cuts people in order to get Wall Street off their backs. Perhaps all of these cuts are necessary for a business stand-point, but perhaps they are not. Isn't it rather unwise to assume that CEOs can mess up planning for future market changes but cannot mess up deciding whether or not to layoff employees?
todd Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 It may be fashionable to talk about how much more dynamic and innovative small companies are, but this is overstated. Both sizes have their place in the economy. Large ones help improve efficiency due to their scale and most importantly large companies are the only ones that can afford largescale R&D efforts. Your start-ups just exploit a new idea and run with it whether that idea was original to the founders, a university or somewhere else. This is important, but acting like large companies do not play a role in innovation is idiotic. Who makes all the innovations in airplane engines and power plants, oh wait, GE... 387702[/snapback] That's quite a long list of excuses you are making. Tell that to the people being laid off. I was reminded today of one of my favorite quotes by one of the founders of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center: "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" Kodak had the capability to do that, and they bombed.
Astrobot Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 A couple of bad decisions by the former execs: The kiosks haven't panned out the way they thought. Trying to compete with Ofoto and Shutterfly by developing their own online print service (instead of buying and improving Ofoto) was another bad decision. On the other hand, medical test machines are doing very well, and their foray into mass-market digital cameras has been highly successful. Any nepotistic tendencies by big business will cause layoffs as the market changes too quickly to keep people for the sake of keeping them. Would you rather have Kodak leaner and viable, or bloated and nepotistic?
Wraith Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 A couple of bad decisions by the former execs: The kiosks haven't panned out the way they thought. Trying to compete with Ofoto and Shutterfly by developing their own online print service (instead of buying and improving Ofoto) was another bad decision. On the other hand, medical test machines are doing very well, and their foray into mass-market digital cameras has been highly successful. Any nepotistic tendencies by big business will cause layoffs as the market changes too quickly to keep people for the sake of keeping them. Would you rather have Kodak leaner and viable, or bloated and nepotistic? 387845[/snapback] Kodak actually owns Ofoto. The kiosks are wildly popular. The problem with both however is that even with huge popularity they haven't generated a profit. That is because while Ofoto (now known as the Kodak EasyShare Gallery) is hugely popular, membership is free and the services you have to pay for (such as printing) go unused. The problem with the kiosks is that Kodak shouldered the expenses for installing the kiosks and all the necessary infrastructure in the retailers who use them. Both of these areas seem likely to improve as time passes, especially the kiosks. I am of the mind that Kodak will turn things around. They have generated more innovative ideas in the last three years than in the ten previous. Good, solid ideas that consumers want. Now they have to learn how to turn a profit with them. Part of the problem is that Kodak developed huge costs over the generations and didn't care, because the profit margin on film is huge., and a little bloat could be overlooked. That business model won't fly for them anymore.
todd Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Kodak didn't used to own Ofoto. They tried to do their own thing for a while and it was horrible. Marketing people tried to manage a software development process, and IT people tried to manage a marketing tool. It was hilarious. Eventually Kodak bought Ofoto. Also of note - Ofoto (and snapfish) is rapidly losing ground to flexible tools like Flickr. Regarding Kiosks, there is plenty of completition in this area, so we'll see how it shakes out. Kodak ease of use is excellent - tops in the Kiosk industry IMO, but I get better results (picture quality) from the Fuji-based kiosks. Kodak actually owns Ofoto. The kiosks are wildly popular. The problem with both however is that even with huge popularity they haven't generated a profit. That is because while Ofoto (now known as the Kodak EasyShare Gallery) is hugely popular, membership is free and the services you have to pay for (such as printing) go unused. The problem with the kiosks is that Kodak shouldered the expenses for installing the kiosks and all the necessary infrastructure in the retailers who use them. Both of these areas seem likely to improve as time passes, especially the kiosks. I am of the mind that Kodak will turn things around. They have generated more innovative ideas in the last three years than in the ten previous. Good, solid ideas that consumers want. Now they have to learn how to turn a profit with them. Part of the problem is that Kodak developed huge costs over the generations and didn't care, because the profit margin on film is huge., and a little bloat could be overlooked. That business model won't fly for them anymore. 387908[/snapback]
ganesh Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 3 Reasons: 1. New York State Government. 2. Monroe County Government. 3. Rochester City Government. 387339[/snapback] How about weather ?
Recommended Posts