Destroying American Jobs (ie Kodak)

[tw]

Only a fool or business school graduate would think jobs are created (or lost) due to things that happen this year or last year. Everyone should be aware that Eastman Kodak is on the verge of bankruptcy. And should know why.

Kodak was created in the 19th Century by pioneering and advancing the film industry. By people who come from where the work get done. It could have continued if, well, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Kodak's innovations were image processing. But Kodak remained only in film. As others made better cameras, Kodak only made film. In 1975, Kodak developed the world's first digital camera. But Kodak remained in film. Then Kodak finally decided to make in the 1980s what was pioneered in the 1940s - instant photography. As any business school graduate would do, Kodak did not bother to innovate. In 1986, it was obvious in court that Kodak was simply violated Polaroid’s patents. Kodak withdrew from the instant photography market that was in 1980 another buggy whip business. Kodak remained only in film.

Obvious was that imagining was more than film. A 1960 technology - copiers was clearly innovative. But when Kodak decided to make copiers 20 years later - too little too late. More buggy whips.

Management was so dumb that Kodak president Kay Whitmore even feel asleep in a critical 1990 meeting with Bill Gates. After all, Kodak was only about film.

Others such as Fuji and Agfa were taking market share from Kodak. In a press conference, Kodak's president went down to talk to the photographers. To ask why news photographers were all using Fuji film. He was told that Fuji film did the more vibrant colors that the press wanted in photos. And still he did not get it. Kodak remained making conventional film.

Kodak once owned 90% of the film business and 85% of the camera business. So Kodak stopped innovating by doing what any business school graduate would do. Since every business school graduate is taught the purpose of a business is profit. Innovation costs money.

In 2003, Kodak hired a new president: Antonio Perez. A business and marketing graduate of Spanish and French business schools. Having surrendered the entire digital camera market to patriotic companies, by not even advancing their conventional film business, and after failing miserably in other 'too late to the market ventures' such as the copiers, then Kodak decided to innovate. They decided to make ink jet printers AFTER trends were moving from paper copies to electronic copies. According their 'innovator' Perez, Kodak was going to, "disrupt the industry’s business model and address consumers’ main dissatisfaction: the cost of ink”. My experience with Kodak printers - it eats ink quickly.

Kodak surrendered the conventional and digital camera markets in a fashion routinely seen when a company is lead by business school graduates. And protected by other business school graduates. Eventually Kodak stopped making films. Decided to innovate by moving into another 'buggy whip' business.

After six years of no accomplishment (thanks in part to a Board of Directors who are also business school geniuses), Kodak is burning through cash in scary numbers. Some Kodak credit lines were recently closed. Kodak's future products were obviously so defective for so long that even some on Wall Street see reality. While Perez still insists even last July that Kodak will disrupt what is beginning to become a buggy whip industry - paper printers.

Some of this is discussed by the NY Times of 20 Oct 2011 in Negative Exposure for Kodak

Eastman Kodak sold for $60 per share a decade ago. When Perez took over in 2005, Kodak was $30 per share. Recently the stock sold for about $0.60 per share before rising back up to $1. A stock that sells for less than $1 per share can be delisted on the stock market. The only thing keeping Kodak alive was the mental midgets on Wall Street who profit by doing so.

Why does Wall Street keep loaning money to a company that has decided to invest $billions in another buggy whip? Wall Street cannot see an innovation even it if was sucked up their nose. The reference to cocaine is far from accidental. Wall Street only understands investing in obsolete technologies. And takes $billions from America by doing so.

Kodak is another trophy of what is the most popular post-graduates of American schools create. Most are taught how to be as anti-American as Perez and George Jr (another business school graduate). Too enrich the top people while destroying American jobs. How many more thousands of Americans must be unemployed thanks to Kodak management in 2005 and decades earlier? More American jobs destroyed - surrendered to the Japan, China, and elsewhere, because 85% of all problems are directly traceable to those who enrich themselves at the expense of America.

He could not possibly innovate. Due to Board of Directors, Wall Street stock brokers, and investment bankers, then American simply wasted more $billion for the greater glory of business school management.

Only one question remains. When will the American economy stop harming itself by protecting Kodak? The sooner Kodak goes into bankruptcy, then the sooner future American jobs will stop be destroyed by more money games. It means Wall Street must stop screwing America to enrich themselves. And drive Kodak out of business.

[footfootfoot]

I could have run Kodak better.

[ZenGum]

Agree with everything except the claim that paper printing is on the way out. The paperless office just hasn't happened. We are printing more than ever. People prefer to hold a paper copy in their hand and mark it with a pen.

IMHO the problem is short term thinking caused by short term payment calculations. CEO can slash the development (or maintenance - see Qantas) budget, and get rosy profit figures for the next five years, and so get a nice fat bonus for those five years. Eventually, as well described by TW, the company falls behind and profits fall, but by this time the CEO has either moved on or been given a golden parachute to do so. The CEO trades long term survival for short term profitability, because his contract was written in a way to encourage this.

Once again, I have a simple easy effective solution, which is to mumble mumble mumblemumble...

[Lamplighter]

Z, there you go again with your one-size-fits-all solution.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Agree with everything except the claim that paper printing is on the way out. The paperless office just hasn't happened. We are printing more than ever. People prefer to hold a paper copy in their hand and mark it with a pen.

That is business school thinking. We know the paperless office (which means massive paper reduction; not zero paper) is inevitable. Recognizing when innovations exist is the real art of business (why did Palm not beat iPad to market dominance?). View massive paper reduction delivered by the Post Office in just the past year. This trend (promised decades ago) has started and is accelerating. Only one educated with a Masters Degree in Buggy Whip Technology could deny it.

According to spread sheets, the office has never had more paper. And they would be right. That proves it will continue? A fundamental difference exists between one trained to know everything from spread sheets verses one who learns by viewing products and innovation that do not yet appear on spread sheets.

As Sculley (who subverted Apple Computer) once said (because his predictions were only from spread sheets), "Everytime I had the computer industry figured out, it had already changed." Just because paper use has peaked does not mean (as Kodak and Wall Street bean counters would have us believe) that paper use will increase. That thinking is only found in what is taught in business schools and on Wall Street. Only found when the purpose of a business is profits.

Printer use (and copiers) will never disappear. But would you spend $billions to develop a “disruptive innovation” – a new lead pencil? Kodak is dong just that. Encouraged by Wall Street experts who only invest in obsolete technologies to enrich themselves and reduce American living standards.

NPR recently discussed a lady who had developed a new technology lithium battery. She had one problem. Wall Street refused to invest in her business - as it also refused to invest in Intel over 40 years ago. She has found investment money (about $250 million) from private and government investors in China. Wall Street would divert $billions into Kodak and cannot invest in future technologies such as Lithium batteries? Exactly.

Another example of why other Americans get brutally punished with poverty. Because the best paid people are corrupt and dumb as George Jr (also a business school graduate).

BTW, this post proves UG is a flaming liberal. He (like George Jr supporters) will dispute this.

[ZenGum]

There is no evidence that the paperless office is, as you say "inevitable". Paper use has not peaked - it is still increasing.

A paperless office is possible. It would probably be better, cheaper, greener.

Your analysis fails to allow for human irrationality. Humans want to hold the paper copy.

[Lamplighter]

I can sure echo that.

We tried to get secretaries to use first one kind of "Appointments" software, then another.

The advantage was we could link to their medical record, etc., etc.
There was no way they were going down that road
They would not give up their "little black books", until...

The hospital implemented it's own multi-$K system, and told the staff
they "had to use it"... because it linked into the Billing Dept.

$ is power, and power is $

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

A paperless office is possible. It would probably be better, cheaper, greener.

Your analysis fails to allow for human irrationality. Humans want to hold the paper copy.

What people like is the physical possession and portability, I agree. But what about the proliferation of iPads and Kindle Fires and the like? I think soon a paper copy won't be necessary because everyone will have their flat little screen they carry around and it can be whatever document they want it to be.

[ZenGum]

I'd still say that isn't as good. With paper you can flip back and forth, make marks, do what you want, all much more easily and efficiently. Yes, I know you can do those things on an ipad or kindle, but not as well as you can on tree pulp.

As well as the physical possession, I think there is some cognitive psychological advantage to using paper, but I can't be any clearer than that.

Hmm, maybe I'll write a paper on this. No, a .doc.

[Lamplighter]

Besides, it's really expensive to fill your bookshelves with iPads and Kindles.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'd still say that isn't as good. With paper you can flip back and forth, make marks, do what you want, all much more easily and efficiently. Yes, I know you can do those things on an ipad or kindle, but not as well as you can on tree pulp.

As well as the physical possession, I think there is some cognitive psychological advantage to using paper, but I can't be any clearer than that.

Attrition always wins in the end. You may well feel this way until your dying day, but my children will feel differently long past your dying day.


Unless the apocalypse comes first, of course.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As well as the physical possession, I think there is some cognitive psychological advantage to using paper, but I can't be any clearer than that.

That is what so many thought five years ago. Then Amazon came out with the Kindle. Amazon now sells more books electronically than in paper.

Amazon saw the value of innovation long ago when others thought paper will remain the future. Kodak has the same buggy whip attitude.

To save American jobs, a Kodak bankruptcy should have happened ten years ago. Then maybe Kodak might have developed the next innovation in image processing - the Kindle. Kodak cannot do that when entrenched in a paper mentality. Curious. Those on Wall Street that protected Kodak also have a paper profits attitude.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

We tried to get secretaries to use first one kind of "Appointments" software, then another.

They would not give up their "little black books", until...

The hospital implemented it's own multi-$K system, and told the staff
they "had to use it"... because it linked into the Billing Dept.

And when the systems went down and their nice lil programs weren't accessible?
Thats right, those old school paper things saved the day.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by tw

To save American jobs, a Kodak bankruptcy should have happened ten years ago. Then maybe Kodak might have developed the next innovation in image processing - the Kindle. Kodak cannot do that when entrenched in a paper mentality. Curious. Those on Wall Street that protected Kodak also have a paper profits attitude.

Are Kindles made in the US? Cuz Kodak printers sure aren't. They're from China all the way and very poorly made at that. To my regret, I bought a Kodak printer some months back (coming from the time of papyrus, I still like to print things out). I had it for 2 or 3 months when it suddenly decided to stop printing in color.

I did all the trouble shooting I could on my own, and when I couldn't fix it, I got onto Kodak's help site which promised real chat with a Kodak help desk person. Who was very polite and from India. OK. Machine made in China, help desk staffed from the Indian sub-continent. (I would like to know in what way Kodak should still be called an "American" company).

Anyway, Deepchok asked me a bunch of questions and finally told me that my problem was due to a recent paper jam on my printer which had damaged the print head. The thing can be damaged by a single paper jam? What? At least Deepchok said he would send me a new print head for free, and that I should have no trouble installing it.

Right. Now, I am not a complete computer klutz. I'm not afraid to do simple stuff like add more memory or an external drive, etc. But that damn print head was impossible. On top of that, the thingy that holds the printer open - kind of like the thingy that holds the hood on your car open - is made of very brittle plastic and it snapped. Since the printer seems only to be able to run if the thingy is in the exact right spot, that Kodak printer STILL won't run, even though I did get the print head in correctly.

I have no idea why Wall Street or anyone else would throw money at Kodak printers. Mine is hands down the worst piece of computer equipment I have ever owned.

[TheMercenary]

Our hospital finally installed a multimillion dollar electronic records system, but because there are now three, yes, I said THREE, different programs in the hospital system of electronic records none of which talk with each other, we now have to print the latest one to go into the patients in-patient record. Wasn't the idea of electronic records to not have paper? So who was it that campaigned on making all our medical records electronic so if you had care in Ohio and got hurt in Texas the doctor to get your records? Fat chance. But boy there sure are a few people making a lot of money off this plan.