Kodak has been the ultimate bogeyman of MBA programs.
The company held an unassailable position in one the worlds largest markets.
It had a deep, lasting brand with consumers and professionals along with a high-margin recurring revenue stream.
But it failed to fully understand the impact of emerging technologies.
It couldnt get its 100+ year-old self to pivot in time.
It didnt cross the chasm and cannonballed deep into the abyss.
You could build a small mountain out of the airport books that regurgitate this horror story.
Its also not exactly true.
It was in the business of chemical processing, i.e.
creating and then refining the large-scale production of films, liquids, and other materials.
40% off TNW Conference!
Digital photography, by contrast, is rooted in semiconductors.
While semiconductors rely on chemistry, chip making revolves around mass producing transistor-based devices on silicon and other substrates.
Its not just an entirely different business.
Its rooted in entirely different branches of science.
Kodak pioneered digital imagers andcame out with some of the first cameras.
Ultimately, however, it would have to rely on third parties like Samsung to design and make devices.
It had no competitive advantage anymore; instead, it was at a competitive disadvantage.
It didnt own its own fabs.
It could not amortize the cost of chip development onto different products, like microcontrollers or flash memory.
Most of the time, companies dont make dramatic leaps into new worlds.
They move next door.
Intel tried, and failed, for years to move into communications chips, a somewhat similar market.
Microsofts consumer electronics ambitions were often curbed.
Lyft is going from cars to scooters.
But jumping from one field to an entirely different discipline?
This is like Tim Cook deciding to form a band.
Apples new TV ambitions may show how difficult it is to make a leap like this.
Like Evel Knievel showed, some chasms are too big to cross in one leap.
But it could have been a brand!
Brand names arent as strong as you think.
But it didnt invest in innovation!
Actually, Kodak was a pioneer in Organic Light Emitting Diodes in the late 90s.
OLEDSs are thin, flexible, provide a wonderful viewing experience and are theoretically 100 percent efficient.
They are a miracle material that could revolutionize lighting, architecture, and entertainment.
They are alsomurderous to make in volume.
Kodak spent years and millions on OLED, but it was too early.
OLEDs really only gone mainstream becauseSamsunghas the time and money to endure the headaches.
Were only now seeing the mass market.
But now theres nothing left!
Eastman Chemical, the chemical subsidiary carved out of Kodak proper,garnered $10 billionin revenue last year.
It also employs 14,000, and is a recognized leader in material science.
Id say its a fate considerably better than death.
He has worked as a reporter, analyst and marketing exec in Silicon Valley for over 20 years.
