this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
385 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
2940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That made me true but let's not ignore the huge profit motive for Kodak to keep people on film. That was their money maker.

They had an incentive to keep that technology out of the consumer market.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They absolutely did, but they knew they couldn't do that forever, because Moore's law goes for CMOS too. film photography would end as a mainstream product, so they actually tried to compete both in digital photography, scanners, and photo printing.
But their background was in chemical photo technologies, and they couldn't transfer their know how in that, to be an advantage with the new technologies, even with the research they'd done and the strong brand recognition.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fujifilm successfully repositioned towards other chemistry. I know there's that Eastman spinoff but why wasn't it as successful?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yes but Fuji branched out way earlier, and were huge on storage media already in the early 80's.
No doubt Fuji has done better. Fuji is a complex of more than 200 branches.