The first affordable one (Kodak DC20 of 1996) was actually very good. At least colorwise. Most people just did not know how to use it. You could make panoramas and use supersampling ie blend several static pictures:
It's weird to look at the history of Kodak's digital camera lineup[1]. It's often said that Kodak fell because they didn't invest in the technology early enough and were too late by the time they started to do so in the 90s.
I would argue that the existing user base of Canon and Nikon in the 80s probably contributed more to that - although Kodak made SLRs they didn't make lenses, and instead offered compatibility with Canon/Nikon's mounts. The problem is that the users of those lenses were more than likely to buy camera bodies manufactured by the same company, and not Kodak. Had Kodak offered bodies in the 80s then it's doubtful they would have sold to Canon/Nikon users due to the costs.
It seems they were damned by either going for too much (cost) too soon, or too little too late.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_manufactured_...
My fifth (arguable) digital camera was a DC-3200; I still own several (others that I picked up at Goodwill).
I say fifth and arguable because my first real digital camera, prior to it, was this no-name cheapo QVGA camera that took horrible pictures. Prior to that were a series of digitizers (a Dazzle for my 486, some digitizer for my Amiga, and a DS-69b for my TRS-80 Color Computer). There may have been a quickcam or two in there as well.
Anyhow - yeah, it was a really nice camera, and I still keep it around (and the extras I bought) for taking "shop" pictures when my hands are dirty, or I'm in a "dirty" environment (welding, automotive work, etc). Don't want to ruin my phone or my "good" camera.
But I do know of one major downside (ok, two):
1. Slow to take a picture - you had to press the button, and wait - don't move - otherwise it'd blur.
2. Ate AA batteries for lunch - you'd be lucky to get 2 hours out of a set.
But other than those two things - it was really nice camera!
I think this is often used as an example of the "innovators dilemma" i.e. Kodak's cash cow was film sales. Every digital camera sold would potentially eliminate a film customer forever. So internally there was just an unwillingness to admit that the future was digital. So many people thinking things like "serious/pro photographers will never abandon film" or "digital will never have the quality of film" and for a little while they were right. By the time they realized they were wrong it was too late.
What's also odd is that they had really great image sensor technology, used heavily in scientific and medical instruments, and somehow lost the lead there too.
Looking back at the photos it took (on a 32MB CF I bought for USD 32), I'm surprised as to how good they were and how they are comparable (at least without pixel peeping) to a 2014-era smartphone.
I think smartphones, particularly the iPhone, set us back a few years in photo quality where the convenience of an always accessible camera made us ignore the obvious lower quality images that they produced. If you look at photos on social media from 2004-2010, you'll see that they are often higher quality than more recent photos, though we are now at a tipping point where computational photography has started to make up for the smaller lenses and poorer optics of phone camera.