Sometimes the market says the most efficient outcome is for your company to die and a replacement rise from the ground elsewhere.

Old, tired companies with lots of sunk costs and old employees are at a disadvantage.

Moreover, sometimes the most efficient outcome for owners is milk what you can from the business then close up shop. The idea of a public market with fractional ownership is you dont have to keep all your eggs in one basket.

Kodak does not need to become a cellphone company. You can take your dividends from Kodak and invest in Apple. When Kodak profits go to zero, you sell the the assets and move on.

I'm definitely not saying any company can make any product, but it is striking when a company which is making a product refuses to believe the product category is going to evolve—even when they themselves are doing the original R&D to evolve it.

I was basically agreeing with you earlier post. I do think that there is a bias where people tend to conflate a failure to believe for legitimate concerns. Both happen.

Maybe Kodak was right in the traditional telling of the story? What if the best course would have been to ignore digital entirely, milk film for all it's worth, and then go down with the ship?

https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technolo...