SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
This value proposition was very differentfrom the one that the leadingphotography companiesoffered back then.
The leading photographic companies in the U.S. were Anthony and Scovill (who mergedinto Anthony & Scovill in 1901, later shortened to Ansco). Their very successful businesseswere focused on meeting the needs of portrait studios and serious amateurs.
If Kodak and the roll film had simplifiedphotography, digital imaging made it cheaper and simpler than ever before.
The image quality was significantly worse, butdigital imaging offered new performance attributes that were valued by non-photographers.
The image could be viewed instantly, it did not cost anything to capture a picture and they could be shared easily with the help from computers and the internet…
Once the digital cameras had reached thepoint of being ‘good enough’, sales exploded.3025201510 5 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Number of film and digital cameras sold in the United States.
Just like the roll film, digital imagingattacked from below and brought newperformance attributes to the market.
Once digital camera salesexploded, film sales imploded...
… And 100 years after Kodak had disruptedthe industry, it was Kodak’s turn to be put in trouble by a new technology.