Prev: Dpreview as a sales mechanism
Next: New Henry's Outlet store very "sterile"
From: BD on 19 Mar 2010 22:47
On Mar 19, 4:15 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Fuji's decline is a sad one.  Their Nikon-Fuji hybrid DSLR's really

Good god man - do you have nothing positive to say about anything? If
not, remember - down the road, not across the street!
From: Rich on 20 Mar 2010 02:11
On Mar 19, 10:47 pm, BD <robert.d...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:15 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fuji's decline is a sad one.  Their Nikon-Fuji hybrid DSLR's really
>
> Good god man - do you have nothing positive to say about anything? If
> not, remember - down the road, not across the street!

Good? Not long ago I would have said the same thing about Samsung
(except for the ever having been good part) but now they appear to be
at least partially innovative. Fuji needs new leadership in the
camera division.
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Mar 2010 02:16
BD <robert.drea(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 4:15�pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fuji's decline is a sad one. �Their Nikon-Fuji hybrid DSLR's really
>
>Good god man - do you have nothing positive to say about anything?

Not so I've noticed.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bruce on 22 Mar 2010 05:06
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:39:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I hate seeing any company that innovated in the beginning go down the
>tubes.


There is no evidence - other than your mischievous postings - that
Fuji is "going down the tubes" or anywhere remotely near that.


>Look at Kodak, they are the poster-child for this.


Kodak is an object lesson in what happens when a company succeeds
beyond its founders' wildest dreams, and gets taken over by
accountants. To an accountant, innovation costs money, whereas
milking an established brand costs almost nothing and generates a lot
of profit. So Kodak stopped innovating.

The problem is, you can only milk the profits for so long. Then, you
need some innovative products to compete in the market and make money
again. Alas, Kodak's recent history has been more focused on stifling
innovation than encouraging it, and the company's bottom line has been
irretrievably damaged as a result.

But that's true of so many large corporations, especially those in the
technology sector where risks need to be taken to generate rewards.
The problem is, Kodak grew so large that it could only be managed by
risk-averse accountants. What Kodak should have done is floated off
divisions of the company to allow them to break free of the corporate
stranglehold.

The divisions to be sold off would need to be seen as innovative to
gain the best price, and they would still need to innovate to survive.
In a mega-corporate world, those fundamentals got lost, and milking
the value of the brand took over.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Dpreview as a sales mechanism
Next: New Henry's Outlet store very "sterile"