# Perez leaving Kodak . . . finally.



## Tedski (Aug 3, 2013)

Good riddance to Antonio Perez, the man who destroyed Kodak.

Tweeted by financial writer Herb Greenberg:

Another member of my worst CEO list to bite the dust... Long overdue $ek http://usat.ly/15aEugC

Tedski

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read."-- G. Marx


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2013)

Kodak has been down a long,long road to ruin under Perez. Not sure though how much of the responsibility rests with him though. From what I've read, the entire organization's management, at every level, always took a "We're better than the customers we have!" attitude. I've read some very damning stories,lengthy ones, about the mentality that led Kodak to try and create new fields of products to sell to NON-existent markets...thinking that by virtue of their sheer might, that they, _The Great and Omnipotent Kodak_, could somehow "create" markets that did not exist, or that were already served by more nimbler, better-established, more-responsive competitors.

But then again, the whole idea that printing could rescue Kodak seems to lie at numbnuts' feet...so...he surely did play a big part in the eventual descent in to bankruptcy. As I recall, at one time, Eastman Kodak was the fourth-largest private, non-defense industry employer in the USA. Or was that the second-largest? Or were they *the largest* non-defense private employer?


----------



## runnah (Aug 3, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The Great and Omnipotent Kodak



Sometimes old bear gets too fat and too old to stay innovative and competitive. 

Kodak wasn't the first nor will they be the last. Blaming one man for all the issues is just silly.


----------



## Designer (Aug 3, 2013)

Derrel said:


> _Kodak_, could somehow "create" markets that did not exist,



They did that once, and apparently adopted that mantra as their business model.


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Kodak has been down a long,long road to ruin under Perez. Not sure though how much of the responsibility rests with him though. From what I've read, the entire organization's management, at every level, always took a "We're better than the customers we have!" attitude. I've read some very damning stories,lengthy ones, about the mentality that led Kodak to try and create new fields of products to sell to NON-existent markets...thinking that by virtue of their sheer might, that they, _The Great and Omnipotent Kodak_, could somehow "create" markets that did not exist, or that were already served by more nimbler, better-established, more-responsive competitors.



You can see other big companies doing the same thing like Microsoft with their Windows products. (honestly just who approved their marketing for the Xbox1 and who came up with the idea that Windows 8 interface was a good design choice _

Sadly these super companies that grow so big that they don't just dominate but almost fully control a large segment of the market all to themselves tend to end up going a bit nuts. I suspect its because the management ends up internally isolated from the actual customers - surrounded by too many yesmen and shareholders who they have to listen to as well as concerns more for profit and an expectation that the market will just follow them. It all adds up to a company that slowly (or quickly) loses its customer respect and connection and that fast leads to  problems.

Kodak had the added problem that in the span of only a handful of years the market when through a huge digital shift that stripped them of a vast amount of their income


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2013)

I have to agree with overread--Kodak grew isolated from customers, and had too many yes men. ALSO, Kodak never really took FujiFilm "seriously"...but before too many years had passed, Fuji moved into the USA market,as well as Europe, and came to be a giant in film,world-wide.

We had a good thread about this back in December of 2012.   http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...oses-kodak-dead-photographic-community-2.html

Some articles that give an idea of the bankruptcy and some of the issues that caused it...

The Online Photographer: 20th-Century Giant Files for Chapter 11


The Online Photographer: The Digital Transition, 1994-2011


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2013)

From what I gather they were hit twice - first by not really jumping into the digital market fast enough but also by the fact that other companies suddenly cut away from them and stopped using Kodak products (ergo the film). The only way they could have saved themselves I think would have been to have either marketed film much more heavily to keep it in the market strong or to have pushed to get into sensor development so they could at least have preserved supply to the other big camera producers. 

I just hope they can downsize and remain viable to supply the niche market for film now or at the very least release the formulas for their film to the market if they go down fully so that other groups can setup and keep film alive and without losing decades of development of film technology.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 3, 2013)

Kodak did have a pretty good medium format sensor design and manufacturing/production business; they made sensors for a number of MF backs and imaging "solutions"...buuuut....there's not much money in MF sensor development, due to the lack of demand for MF cameras, world-wide. Kodak sold their sensor design and manufacturing division off before the bankruptcy. High-volume sensor makers like Sony are making money in sensor sales.

I do not think that ANYTHING Kodak, or any other single company did or would have done, could have stemmed the tide of digital conversion. Film use and printing of film pictures died very quickly once digital cameras hit the $300-$399 price point. And with the sudden death of the film-shooting business, went the death of Kodak's 35mm film cameras, along with the fairly predictable and rapid decline in film developing chemicals, printing papers for both color and B&W films, and the death of the film printing business, and the kiosks.Not to mention the digital conversion of the film industry to more and more video; this year is the year that the Hollywood studios have said they will end distribution of 35mm motion picture prints, forcing many small, independent movie theatre owners to scramble for funds to "go digital".

Once film and printing died--then social media and cheap web storage, and cell phone uploading transformed images from "prints" to screen-viewed images, stored on computer disks and in memory--while Kodak thought they could "print" their way out of the new era...

Kodak was a world-wide giant in the imaging field, but somehow or other, managed to bungle almost every,single challenge they were faced with. For decades, they failed and failed and failed. Imagine if KODAK would have had the foresight to do something SMART--like buy Facebook, or Myspace, and turn it into an imaging portal....nope. "NIMBY"--not in my back yard or NIH "not invented here"...


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 4, 2013)

Overread said:


> From what I gather they were hit twice - first by not really jumping into the digital market fast enough but also by the fact that other companies suddenly cut away from them and stopped using Kodak products (ergo the film). The only way they could have saved themselves I think would have been to have either marketed film much more heavily to keep it in the market strong or to have pushed to get into sensor development so they could at least have preserved supply to the other big camera producers.



Really? I thought Kodak was a pioneer and ahead of the curve when it came to digital. I mean, they did develop one of the first commercially available full frame DSLRs didn't they?

I thought they just kind of...didn't keep up and didn't market themselves very well.

They seemed to be pretty cutting edge in the 90's and early 00's.


----------



## Tedski (Aug 4, 2013)

Perez became Prez of EK in 2003,  CEO in 2005, and Chairman of the Board in 2006.

In 2005 EK was #1 in digital camera sales. Instead of running with the ball and capitalizing on their extensive portfolio of digital imaging related patents, Perez decided to "reinvent" the company, shifting the focus to their printer business -- a move which some view as a feeble attempt to "get back" at Hewlett Packard, his previous employer.

Perez made all the decisions and pulled all the strings. He absolutely is the one person culpable in the demise of Kodak.

Tedski

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read."-- G. Marx


----------



## timor (Aug 13, 2013)

Tedski said:


> Perez decided to "reinvent" the company, shifting the focus to their printer business -- a move which some view as a feeble attempt to "get back" at Hewlett Packard, his previous employer.


Maybe that is what Perez new only - digital printing.
Kodak was destroyed by own creation (and wrong patents politics ), story which repeats over and over.


----------



## hamlet (Sep 14, 2013)

Funfact: everyday people here in Belgium call cameras in general: Kodaks. Like Walkman.


----------

