←back to thread

346 points BirAdam | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
martinpw ◴[] No.39945361[source]
Whenever this topic comes up there are always comments saying that SGI was taken by surprise by cheap hardware and if only they had seen it coming they could have prepared for it and managed it.

I was there around 97 (?) and remember everyone in the company being asked to read the book "The Innovator's Dilemma", which described exactly this situation - a high end company being overtaken by worse but cheaper competitors that improved year by year until they take the entire market. The point being that the company was extremely aware of what was happening. It was not taken by surprise. But in spite of that, it was still unable to respond.

replies(24): >>39945445 #>>39945479 #>>39945482 #>>39945689 #>>39945716 #>>39945753 #>>39946158 #>>39946264 #>>39946444 #>>39947143 #>>39947437 #>>39947638 #>>39947930 #>>39948579 #>>39948653 #>>39948877 #>>39948901 #>>39949363 #>>39949453 #>>39950393 #>>39950670 #>>39950973 #>>39951304 #>>39970462 #
ghaff ◴[] No.39945479[source]
Having worked longtime for a minicomputer company--which actually survived longer than most mostly because of some storage innovations along with some high-end Unix initiatives--it's really hard. You can't really kick a huge existing business to the curb. Or otherwise say we're going to largely start over.

Kodak was not actually in a position to be big in digital. And, of course, the digital camera manufacturers mostly got eclipsed by smartphones anyway a decade or so later.

replies(3): >>39945560 #>>39946414 #>>39946933 #
aurizon ◴[] No.39946414[source]
On the contrary, Kodak was well placed to do well by anticipating 'Moore's Law' as pertinent to sensor pixel density and sensitivity versus film. Film resolution was towards the end of intense development in pixel terms - not much further to go. They had pioneering patents and ongoing R&D would have enabled a long period of dominance during the transition and to this day!! The board and scientists were asleep on a mountain of cash, and they sold their future for a few crumbs left for shareholders after bankruptcy. Blackberry did much the same with fewer excuses. I met with some board members of Kodak in the 80's and they were like old English gentlemen - long on pomp and procedure, but they wore blinders and a vision bypass - TRIH.
replies(2): >>39946975 #>>39948236 #
ghaff ◴[] No.39946975[source]
Kodak was essentially a chemical company at one point. They even spun off an actual chemical company. Kodak could probably have played a better hand even if they did probably before their time things like PhotoCD. But they could have been Apple or maybe Instagram? That's a stretch.

I'm not a particular Kodak apologist but suggesting that a company should have been able to anticipate and correct for their business collapsing by 90% in a decade or so seems to need a lot of particulars.

replies(1): >>39947124 #
1. xcv123 ◴[] No.39947124[source]
> But they could have been Apple? That's a stretch.

They could have been a Sony. The iPhone camera sensor is made by Sony.

replies(1): >>39947278 #
2. ghaff ◴[] No.39947278[source]
And Sony has certainly had rough patches too. And that's for a company coming from an electronics manufacturer angle.

Kodak could have spun off a consumer electronics or semiconductor manufacturing company. But it's not clear why that is actually a better model than someone else just spinning up similar entities.

I don't need all the chemical engineers and a lot of other people connected with the old business anyway. And I'm sure not turning them into semiconductor experts.

So you're one of the 10% of employees in HR who snuck through to the other side. Is that really a big deal?

replies(1): >>39948325 #
3. xcv123 ◴[] No.39948325[source]
That's right. The chief executives and the HR lady basically get transferred over to a new startup funded with Kodak's money and everyone else is fired.