
The news that Kodak is pulling out of the hardware market — excepting printers — for good means that, effectively, Kodak is dead. Is this the death knell for the compact digital?
OK, so Kodak’s not technically dead. It’ll still make inexpensive printers, and naturally enough as every technology firm since the dawn of time, it’ll also look to leverage its vast digital imaging patent portfolio.
I wonder if, at the dawn of time, Ug had looked at the wheel and rushed off to the patent office, where we’d all be?* But I’m digressing.
A company that makes printers and rests on a couple of decades of digital imaging technology patents might make a more compelling prospect for investors — and may indeed be the only way for Kodak to get out of the financial mess it finds itself in — but it’s not really Kodak, now is it? The motto used to be “Shoot. Touch. Share”. Will a printer and IP business, does that now morph into “Sue. Touch. Don’t Share”?
Kodak has decades of film photography history, and outside heavy enthusiasts that market’s dead, but digital isn’t. The first digital camera I owned was a Kodak digital camera — the EasyShare LS420, a two megapixel monster that wouldn’t cut the mustard in today’s market, although I do think it still looks quite good, aesthetically speaking.

There’s a wider question at stake here though, as Kodak very heavily tied its recent fortunes to the compact market; while the DSLR and Micro 4/3rds market is fought between names like Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic, to name but a few, that wasn’t where Kodak played in recent years. It’s widely thought that one of the key things that hit Kodak hard was the inclusion of decent quality lenses and sensors in smartphones meaning that nobody was buying compacts any more. That’s probably true, and Kodak’s exit from the market will hasten the fate of compact digital cameras. That too makes me sad.
Certainly, a lot of people do use their mobiles as their camera, but there are some limitations there that I think compacts address that smartphones do not.
For a start, there’s the issue of optical zoom; to date the only smartphone we’ve had a sniff of with integrated zoom optics has been the Aigo A8, AKA the Altek Leo; so far no major phone manufacturer has been quite savvy/insane enough to produce a mobile with built in zoom optics for the Australian market.
That’d be an interesting niche product, but so far all you can do is either use dodgy digital zoom, or the poor man’s zoom, namely moving closer to the object you want to take photographs of.

Then there’s the time and power considerations. I hit this quite frequently; if I spot something happening that I want to shoot (and there’s no DSLR handy), I could either grab a compact camera, fire it up and take a shot, or take my phone out of my pocket, unlock it, launch the camera app — depending on the model I may be able to “quickly” jump straight ot the camera from the lock screen, but this isn’t universal across all phones and platforms. By the time I’ve sorted out the camera — and this is presuming that the battery is up to it — the moment may have passed. It’s also part of the reason I always have a Flip camera in my bag — although that, too, is a dead product line.
What do you think? Are compacts the cameras of the past, or is there still a market for a good compact digital?
* Sadly, I suspect that once Ug got to the patent office with the wheel, he’d find that his discovery was blocked by Wug’s prior art on the rock.
Photo: Nesster



















Blake
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:19 AMIt’s a niche market for a niche audience.
Those that want better quality images than a phone can give, but don’t want to go all the way up to a super expensive fancy camera.
I think most single-purpose devices are going the same way, there’d be a smaller number of people buying separate phones and MP3 players compared to a few years ago simply because the phone is ‘good enough’.
You might see more phones with better lenses coming out, but I think those that care enough will get a good camera, and most other people will stick to phones.
Exception to this: video cameras, I still think a lot of people find it easier to take a video on a separate device even though it’s like one button press away from taking a photo via phone.
Sad to see Kodak going, they helped bring photography to the masses a over a hundred years ago, but all things have their day.
edrin
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:23 AMI still buy kodak’s disposable cameras, for just-in-case situations.
But increasing numbers of photo shops just wont develops the films anymore.
theophilus
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 11:37 AMI used to work for Kodak, 1998 – 2002. In 2001 it was still the ‘most recognizable brand in the world’, even more so than Coca-Cola. It was certainly one of the biggest brands. In ten years they went from this to nothing. If i said Apple or Coca Cola wouldn’t exist in ten years i’d be stoned (by apple fan boys anyway), but the same could have be said of Kodak 10 years ago with a similar reaction. I am sure the Kodak brand name will remain, but as for the company… i (mis)quote Hamlet – “Alas poor Kodak, i knew them, a company of infinite wealth, most excellent products. They bore me upon their back for 4 and a half years, and now how abhorr’d in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. RIP
Ozoneocean
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 1:27 PMIt is sad. Love the Hamlet stuff BTW.
If another camera company had bought up the rights to the name, at least that would have been something… Like the way IBM did with their thinkpad PCss for example.
Eevn a phone company would’ve been something… HTC Kodak for example? Naw, doesn’t work :(
Jacqueline
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 2:37 PMGiven that most places I know have all but sold out of current Kodak stocks after panic buying, I’d say the market isn’t dead. It certainly won’t keep Kodak in the profits it is accustomed to, but if it re-launches some of the recently discontinued films or develops new ones, there is most certainly a market for it. Even more if it’s actually advertised.
A.a.
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 6:06 PMI’ve mainly seen Kodak cameras being sold at stores like Officeworks and Target these days, and only the Mini M200 and Playfull seemed to be ones they stocked.
Still see more Kodak disposable models than digitals on store shoves nowdays.
I have owned many Kodak cameras over the years-mainly ones I purchase secondhand at Cash Converters and charity shops like Lifeline and Salvos, where I can pick up various models quite cheaply.
I do use the camera on my iPod touch-as it’s quick nd fun to use.
I’m very sad to see the end of cameras from Kodak.
Peter Flynn
Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 12:29 PMI am sorry to see it go, I worked for them for many years.
We need to remember that it was not just cameras and film that kept Kodak on the map, Kodak or its products were supplied to the medical industry in the form of Xray film, the graphic arts industry again was filled with Kodak products.
It was basically a company based on silver based film.
When digital arrived, they seemed to be on top at the beginning, with a range of professional cameras, but then, almost from no where, makers like, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, arrived on the scene, X-Ray’s became digital, and the graphic arts industry almost went digital over night, with the introduction of the desk top computers.
Although I was trained on film, I do not regret its passing, digital has allowed me to work in areas that I would never have in the past