Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 240 posts

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#21

Post by heeton »

seanhunter wrote: post #7
moomin wrote: post #4

It’s sad to see. As I understand it, digital photography forced camera companies to decide if they were principally about film or about photos and imaging. The competition in the image space was brutal, which phones winning the mass market by a huge margin. Those that quietly moved into recondite but valuable areas of technical specialisation did much better, but they’re not camera companies anymore.

Kodak give the world the first digital camera[1]. It took mismanagement on a gargantuan scale for them to fail in this manner. [1] https://www.kodak.com/en/company/page/photography-history/

We all know that being first does not mean success, and it’s not “gargantuan” mismanagement.

It’s rare to be first AND the leader 20 years later.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#22

Post by specproc »

throw0101a wrote: post #18
specproc wrote: post #15

Interesting to compare the tech companies of last century with those of this era. Kodak employed a whole town, and many more people besides. We're now waiting on a one-person unicorn. The number of people benefiting from an enterprise has shrunk considerably, with the benefits accruing more tightly within an already wealthy class.

> Interesting to compare the tech companies of last century with those of this era. The 'tech companies' (equivalent) of the past tended to deal with physical goods, and so needed physical means of scaling to become as large as they did. More recent tech companies are often software goods and services, where physical means of scaling may not be as important (though see perhaps with Moore and Dennard). Though those wh…

Heh, I was musing on something I'd read recently that had Kodak as a case study. It was compared with Instagram which had about 10-15 staff when it was bought for USD 1bn. WhatsApp similarly small.

I hear tech can be big employers, maybe I'm overselling my point a bit there. That said, the trend is very much towards smaller operations, and a large headcount is not at all required for large money.

My overall point is that profits that at one time would require a town, or be a major part of a city's economy, can be made with a small office's worth of staff.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#23

Post by NuclearPM »

moomin wrote: post #4

It’s sad to see. As I understand it, digital photography forced camera companies to decide if they were principally about film or about photos and imaging. The competition in the image space was brutal, which phones winning the mass market by a huge margin. Those that quietly moved into recondite but valuable areas of technical specialisation did much better, but they’re not camera companies anymore.

With

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#24

Post by specproc »

squigz wrote: post #17
specproc wrote: post #15

Interesting to compare the tech companies of last century with those of this era. Kodak employed a whole town, and many more people besides. We're now waiting on a one-person unicorn. The number of people benefiting from an enterprise has shrunk considerably, with the benefits accruing more tightly within an already wealthy class.

I don't deny wealth disparity is very much a thing, but this doesn't seem the point to make it. How many people does Google employ? Amazon? Apple? Probably as much or more than a small town.

Fair point, see my response to the commenter above.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#26

Post by xhkkffbf »

jljljl wrote: post #19
dtagames wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kodak itself was the first to demonstrate a digital camera in 1975.[0] There is no one else to blame for any decisions. [0] https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/kodak-engineer-ha...

From the article it sounds like they had strong market share in Digital Cameras in the early 2000’s. What really killed then was phones becoming the dominant form factor

It's true. I chose Kodak digital cameras and was happy with them. They were simple, well-priced and pretty nice all around.

It's just that the cell phones took over that job. (And a dozen other ones too.)

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#27

Post by throw0101a »

specproc wrote: post #22
throw0101a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting to compare the tech companies of last century with those of this era. The 'tech companies' (equivalent) of the past tended to deal with physical goods, and so needed physical means of scaling to become as large as they did. More recent tech companies are often software goods and services, where physical means of scaling may not be as important (though see perhaps with Moore and Dennard). Though those wh…

Heh, I was musing on something I'd read recently that had Kodak as a case study. It was compared with Instagram which had about 10-15 staff when it was bought for USD 1bn. WhatsApp similarly small. I hear tech can be big employers, maybe I'm overselling my point a bit there. That said, the trend is very much towards smaller operations, and a large headcount is not at all required for large money. My overall point is…

> My overall point is that profits that at one time would require a town, or be a major part of a city's economy, can be made with a small office's worth of staff.

This has been true for most industries even 'with-in themselves': it's called productivity growth.

The number of employees (or man-hours) needed to create (say) a tonne of steel has dropped a lot, so where previously you had 'steel towns', now a plant may just have a very few (and produce more tonnage than they've ever done).

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#28

Post by mastry »

throw0101a wrote: post #16
mastry wrote: post #6

> Kodak aims to conjure up cash by ceasing payments for its retirement pension plan. I assume this means payments to retirees. It's a good reminder that (if you can help it) you should not rely 100% on any external source (including the government) for your retirement income.

> I assume this means payments to retirees. You assume wrong. From November 2024: > According to the company, the plan’s liabilities to qualifying participants would be satisfied through a combination of lump sum distributions and an annuity purchased from an insurance company to cover existing obligations. Kodak, like many corporate pension plans, is in a funding surplus; it has significantly more assets than liabil…

Ah - that's good to hear. Thanks for the extra information.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#29

Post by mikewarot »

There are lots of hidden dependencies in the world, who knows what depends on the reliable production of polymer/emulsion products.

It could be that we stop being able to make chips, or printers, or something else because of this as a second or third order effect.

Re: Kodak says it might have to cease operations [updated]

#30

Post by LorenPechtel »

specproc wrote: post #22
throw0101a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting to compare the tech companies of last century with those of this era. The 'tech companies' (equivalent) of the past tended to deal with physical goods, and so needed physical means of scaling to become as large as they did. More recent tech companies are often software goods and services, where physical means of scaling may not be as important (though see perhaps with Moore and Dennard). Though those wh…

Heh, I was musing on something I'd read recently that had Kodak as a case study. It was compared with Instagram which had about 10-15 staff when it was bought for USD 1bn. WhatsApp similarly small. I hear tech can be big employers, maybe I'm overselling my point a bit there. That said, the trend is very much towards smaller operations, and a large headcount is not at all required for large money. My overall point is…

Disagree. It's not a small office worth of staff. You're not counting all the jobs involved in providing the data centers.
Post reply on HN