Not really. A mail order catalog has very little in common with a modern eCommerce operation like Amazon's. It's a bit like saying that because Kodak was a photography giant they should have been able to win digital photography when, in fact, other than brand it's not clear what real assets and expertise they had to bring. (And brand can be a hindrance as well as a help if you're shifting businesses.)
This isn't exactly the best example seeing as how Kodak is the poster child for ignoring technology shifts and going bankrupt as a result. Their executives largely ignored digital for the longest time and put minimal resources into R&D even after it was clear digital was taking over. It's sad really, because Kodak was positioned to be a pioneer in digital but they failed to embrace change and that costed them immensely in the end.
I think a lot of people get caught up in the idea that a company is a living breathing organism that should fight for its life to the very end. In reality, its a collection of investors and employees all with their own interest, and sometimes it's best for everyone to part their separate ways. It's not like the same people were at Kodak when the digital sensor was invented, as there was when they finally gave up on film.
The change to digital was a very slow one, and film remained a very profitable business for Kodak for a long time. IMHO, it would have been insane for Kodak to invest in semiconductor fabrication facilities from the start. Meanwhile existing semiconductor companies could leverage existing tools, employees, and facilities to produce image sensors with relatively low cost and low risk. By the time it made sense to invest in semiconductor tech, they were already too far behind, and it just made more sense for the company to milk the Kodak brand for all they could.
I see it as more like Edison promoting DC over AC. He certainly knew AC was the way to go, but he could only gain financially from DC, so that's what he promoted.
I don't think Edison knew AC was better. Don't forget Tesla worked for Edison and showed him AC current, and Edison told him not to waste his time on it which is why Tesla went off to do his own thing. And anybody that knew Tesla (based on what I've read, I've obviously never met him) knew he didn't care about making money at all, so he would've happily let Edison have all the profits. Most people don't know Tesla voluntarily tore up his contract with Westinghouse that would have made him the richest man in history. I think it would have been very easy for Edison to profit from AC had he not been so stubborn.
I've often wondered what could have happened had they became partners or even friends. What Tesla would have made of, say, the Edison Effect - perhaps the vacuum tube (diode, triode, etc) would have been invented much earlier? How that would have affected history (good and bad)? Would electronic digital computers have been developed earlier? Who knows...
And I'm not suggesting Kodak should have just went for digital in 1975, as that wasn't cost effective, or practical. But they should have, arguably, understood it was the future and at least pretended that it was a possible revenue stream. Instead they actively avoided it, and doubled-down on the "we're a chemical company" for decades. Then they went bankrupt.
Kodak's problem is that they always bottom fed the market with their film cameras and retained the same position in digicams. The former strategy is great when you want to drive demand for consumables. It doesn't work when there is nothing to consume in the picture taking process.
There was a long time there where everyone thought the startups and the consumer electronics companies were going to win. Wasn't there a time when Sony had the best digital cameras? Digital cameras were one of the big 'disruptions' in the early information age.
Clearly, they'll still be the go tos for pros and advanced amateurs for a long time but that's barely a mass market.
Sony did successfully use digital to become a respected camera maker--and they still have some of the best cameras in their category today. But, by and large, the traditional consumer electronics companies focused on point and shoots, which have been almost totally erased by phones.
There was supposed to be a format standard for lenses to solve this problem, but one of my camera-snob friends pointed out that while you can physically thread the lens on another body, things like autofocus probably won't work. So in the end it got people to buy new lenses but still not be able to pick best of breed from each generation.
Sony is the other currently successful camera maker. They bought Konica-Minolta, and made the switch to mirrorless early. Most importantly, they manufacture the best sensors that everyone else except for Canon uses.
Most of the current digital camera brands were analog camera makers. Panasonic is the exception and they partnered with Leica.
Kodak was not a camera company as much as they were a chemical company. They made film, they made developing agents, glass, etc. Eastman Chemical was formerly a subsidary of Kodak, and they had even broader chemical expertise -- fibers, explosives, involved in the Manhattan Project, etc.
So transitioning to digital photography would have meant giving up almost all of their expertise and present business interests. It would have meant slashing their revenue and completely reinventing the company.
Of course, all of that happened anyway. But one can imagine how difficult it would be to pull that trigger yourself. Doing the long-term responsible thing might have even led to shareholder lawsuits...
That doesn't preclude lawsuits. American business law is fucking stupid.
Also, people complain too much about lawsuits versus corporations. Wells Fargo just took a $1.6 billion charge for legal expenses. That's something like 700 person-years at $400/hr, 16 hrs/day. The stupidity isn't the system that allows the lawsuits, it's the corporate mindlessness that wastes the equivalent of 1,000 people's lifetimes on arguing that they didn't do anything wrong instead of just saying "welp you got us".
It's of course natural and sensible for companies to pursue strategies for new products and product lines as existing ones mature and decline. But if doing so means investing in new businesses where you have no particular expertise or advantage, it's unclear if you're benefiting your owners (i.e. shareholders) by doing so.
There's plenty to criticize Kodak about. But it was going to be in a very tough position no matter what. And we can name plenty of other businesses that have been completely replaced by new unrelated technologies. Keuffel and Esser wasn't going to become a calculator company.
Likewise, I saw an actual, functioning prototype digital camera, which connected to a computer via serial...at the Kodak lab in Rochester where it was developed in the late 80s. It was never developed into a product, not because it was beyond them technically but because it didn't use film, which was what the company was all about selling.
Fujifilm had (somewhat) fewer issues with transitioning to digital mostly because they applied their technical expertise in emulsions to areas that had nothing to do with photography. (Though of course they stayed in the photo business as well.)
Fuji did make pivot to mirrorless at the right time.
That's like saying Elon Musk invented the electric car and rocket. More like he hired people to do it, probably from the companies Amazon is competing with.
Back then there wasn't enough infrastructure to deal with 4M pictures, and they thought that you would send them a memory card and they'd send you a CDROM full of images and optionally 'develop' the pictures for you.
If anything, Kodak was too early, which is a phenomenon I experienced first hand at several startups.
Wikipedia says they started in that space in '91:
> In 1991, Kodak brought to market the Kodak DCS (Kodak Digital Camera System), the beginning of a long line of professional Kodak DCS SLR cameras that were based in part on film bodies, often Nikons. It used a 1.3 megapixel sensor, had a bulky external digital storage system and was priced at $13,000 (equivalent to $24,000 in 2018[6]). At the arrival of the Kodak DCS-200, the Kodak DCS was dubbed Kodak DCS-100.
I was there in 1995 - installing computers and supporting a organization with a group of photographers that had 5 of those cameras. We had 100mb PCMCIA micro hard drives - made by IBM - by the dozens (over $1500 a pop if I remember right). It took a minute and a half per picture to import the raw images into Photoshop on the highest end Mac Quadra. Somehow I stumbled on a company that made a DSP accelerator card ($5-$6K if I remember right) that cut that import time to 20-30 seconds, but it would still take a day for a photographer to import all their photos from shooting a day or two in the field.
The early days of digital photography were not pretty. I can do 10 times on my phone what we could do after spending literally 10's of thousands of dollars - and 1/4 the resolution we have today.
And yet with the right people it still managed to look really good :) One of the best things I learned was the strength of mastering the fundamental basics of any craft. I was working with experienced film photographers where developing film had a high cost in both time and materials so they were very deliberate in thinking about and composing shots before they shot. With digital I pointed out you could take a lot more pictures more quickly, and correct things in photoshop - but an old crusty photographer responded he'd rather spend his time on the front end of the process in the physical world with the camera then spending hours behind the desk in front of photoshop - and even as a computer geek that really resonated with me.
The old every hour of planning saves 8 of execution and all that.
But to do so would have required a lot of forethought and vision. They would have needed to recognize the significance of online retail, free shipping, trustworthy customer service, and their fulfillment way back in the early or mid 90s.
I remember startups back then that didn't really recognize that, and I'm certain that old retail didn't.
I'd really like a refresher on what the retail climate was like at that time that lead Sears into thinking getting rid of their catalog was a good idea.
And why didn't Penny's jump into that vacuum?
Although I expect I already know that answer. I was warned by the oldest worker at my first tech job never to work as a software developer for a manufacturer. They don't understand where the uncertainty and the QA effort lives in the dev process and they keep trying to force it to look like what they know. Probably working for a retailer, even one with supply chain chops, would have been awful in that era.
Every article I see about Service Merchandise's decline blames the catalog business (despite doing well in internet sales) as being "too old fashioned" and the root cause, and certainly that's what people seemed to be thinking in the 90s (again, wow how they ignored those internet sales looking at the quoted figures). I'd love to see a better retrospective on the company's 1990's management given we saw Amazon succeed.
Maybe more so than Sears, the fact that Service Merchandise didn't compete better with Amazon is fascinating. Service Merchandise and Sears thought they were competing with Circuit City (dead), Wal-Mart, K-Mart (bought by Sears, dead), Target, rather than each other in the 1990s, and Amazon was left almost entirely uncontested to eat Sears and Service Merchandise's original core competencies.
Sears had the order fulfillment and distribution know how.
My Nikon DSLR is four or five years old now, but instead of replacing it with another Nikon I'm thinking about a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera. (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketci...)
Video is the new still photography.
It uses AA batteries
The resolution is low enough you don't need to post-process stuff to put in on a web page.
You just plug in USB to transfer files. No nonsense like trying to get photos off an iPhone.