Why Kodak Died and Fujifilm Thrived: A Tale of Two Film Companies
I think Kodak merely picked the wrong pivot.  They thought they were a photography company, but they were actually a chemical company.  There is plenty of demand for chemicals these days, and if they had stuck with that, they'd be doing fine.  (I think these days they brand themselves as an "imaging" company, and they sell products like document capture systems.  But that really makes them a software company, and I doubt they're doing great there.  Document capture will probably be taken over by phones; Google is already playing with that and I'm guessing they have better software development teams than Kodak.)<p>Fuji was in a similar place, of course, but they were already making high-end cameras and they were selling well.  I use a GW690ii from 1985 regularly and it has one of the best lenses I've ever used.  They did not forget how to manufacture those over the intervening 30 years, and there is plenty of market for lenses.  (Though I would still worry.  Tiny cell phone cameras are becoming better and better every year, and that's really a function of the sensors, which they buy from Sony.)<p>Ironically, Fuji did kind of screw over the film photography community recently.  They stopped making 4x5 Velvia 50.  They stopped making Acros 100.  Now everyone is using Kodak or Ilford film.  But it's because they could afford to, getting someone to buy a new digital camera every couple years is way more profitable than making chemicals for a super niche industry.  Kodak still doesn't understand that, but they do get some of my money as a result ;)