----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:07 PMSubject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak's Original Digital Camera
Competent business people do not think in these terms. Film versus digital imaging was not an either/or proposition then and still is not now, as Kodak should have well understood. Then there's the very basic core concept that Kodak was/is an imaging company, not a film company, a lesson now being learned the hard way. And still another factor for public companies... shareholder value is largely a function of growthA classic case, related by Rudolf Kingslake, is the rejection of the Xerox process by Kodak because, in the words of Kenneth Mees, "we are a chemical company and this is not a chemical process." The inventors of xerography eventually took it the Haloid Company, a small rival of Kodak and a company which specialized in document copying processes, where it was accepted and developed, the company eventually becoming Xerox. Kodak also had a bad reputation among its dealers because of practices which essentially cut off smaller stores. I think Agfa did them one better by simply never promoting their stuff (at least in the US).and not of profit.I think it is safe to say that from about the mid-90s through about the mid-2000s, Kodak was probably one of the worst managed companiesin the S&P 500... Eric Goldstein
--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USAdickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list