Kodak Could Have Introduced the Digital Camera but Made This Mistake

January 11, 2018

WRITER

Kodak was an iconic company and a leader in the film business. But did you know that Kodak, a company that went bankrupt in 2012, could have launched the first digital camera but passed on the opportunity?

Glenn's Predictions on Technology and AI for 2018

In 1975, a Kodak engineer invented the digital camera. But even though Kodak had the early advantage and patented vital technologies that are still used in digital cameras, the company didn’t want to disrupt its film business with a camera that didn’t require film. By the time Kodak officially went digital, it was too late – competitors like Nikon and Sony had already crowded the field.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu revisited this infamous story to illustrate how quickly the world is changing and how technologies can become obsolete almost overnight.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Hello, and welcome to the program. Coming up we're going to go into some of the predictions. I think today is tech predictions.

STU: Technology.

GLENN: And it's weird because a lot of these tech things are already happening. Yesterday we told you about KODAKCoin. This is the first time to be excited if you have anything to do with Kodak. It's like, they learned their lesson! You know the story about how they went out of business? How fast that happened? You don't know this? This is fascinating. So Kodak, you know, made film, obviously. They were the film dealer for everybody. They are state of the art film and film processing.

And they had a billion employees in Rochester, New York.

And they see the digital camera and they say, well, that's not going to take off. So they decided to not -- we'll let other people do the digital thing. We'll just stay in film.

One Christmas went by, and it was the first Christmas that digital cameras started to take off. They met again and they were like, no, we're a film company. Three Christmas later, they were almost out of business. It happened that fast. They went from the Titan to three years later, nothing. And they're like, maybe we should do the digital thing and it was too late. The first thing that I think Kodak has done that was smart, they just come out, announced it Monday or Tuesday, a KODAKCoin, and it's like Bitcoin. But here's -- and this is in one of my predictions, that some company is going to do this and they're going to use blockchain and Bitcoin to do it, and I said in the prediction that it would be Facebook or Apple or somebody like that.

Kodak is the one that comes out and does it. And what they've done is, you know how you have, you know, the photo thing, not Reuters, but ...

You always see. You go there for stock photos of news things. I don't know if you've ever seen it.

STU: Yeah, there's a few companies that do that.

GLENN: The big one, you sell your -- or you post your photo of, I've got the President picking his nose, and they put it on a service, and that service goes and everybody has it, and if you want to use it for television or radio or newspaper or something, you just buy it from them, and then that company pays you.

STU: Getty Images?

GLENN: That's what it is.

So Kodak has decided they're going to do it. And so what they do, in your camera, you will take pictures, and it will automatically go into blockchain and be held by you, and you can immediately post it. I mean, you take it, and it posts for sale from Kodak, and then there's no middleman. They're not negotiating anything. It's just posted. They buy it, they buy it through KODAKCoin. You get paid immediately, and it's simple, and there's no middleman. That's KODAKCoin.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: It's really brilliant.

STU: It's interesting because they have a big renaissance because they've tied themselves to this blockchain idea and that's happening to a lot of companies. A lot of them are like very strange stories, like this Chanticleer Holdings. Are you a big fan of them?

GLENN: Chanticleer? I've heard of it.

STU: They own several Hooters restaurants, nine Hooters restaurants, and they own some of the stock at Hooters of America.

GLENN: I'm trying to figure out the connection to blockchain.

STU: Right. That's where a lot of people are too. They said, a couple of weeks ago, that they would use blockchain related technology for its customer rewards program. And their stock went up 50%.

GLENN: That happened -- I saw that happen last year. There was another company that just has nothing -- they didn't know that they were putting blockchain. Nothing. They just put blockchain in their name. It was like, Glenn's Blockchain, and it went up. And the company has nothing to do with chain. They were just like, it's like money off of the blockchain.

STU: Really smart.

GLENN: That's Warren Buffett saying, don't invest if you don't know how it works. You know. Most people don't even understand what blockchain is, let alone Glenn's block change. That's somebody going, I know! Put some money in that blockchain thing!

STU: They're thinking, here's a new company, or a company that's changing its goals and they're working in blockchain. Get in now, get in early. Whoever owns that company, increases their cash by 50% or whatever it is. And then they can sell, and make a bunch of money and when it turns out they're actually do it, eventually the stock will come down but it's a good idea.

GLENN: I had a two-hour meeting with a guy from Silicon Valley who's a real mover and shaker and been instrumental in some of the new companies out now, the new tech companies and had a fascinating conversation.

Yesterday, Stu and I had a conversation with a blockchain and cryptocurrency guy.

And man, I hope he's right.

STU: Yeah, he was optimistic, I had say.

GLENN: Yeah, what was he say that he thought? Bitcoin would go up to? He said.

STU: It was 500,000?

GLENN: 500,000, I thought. And he didn't put a time period on that, did you.

STU: No, I don't think so.

GLENN: And he's been right about a lot of these things. I've sure he's been wrong, but he's been right about a lot of these things. There's a lot to learn like a theorem. He taught us about a theorem yesterday. I didn't release that was like an operating system.

STU: Yeah, it is. A lot of these secondary or even below that coins are built on. It's like, that's the operating system for these new, you know, Bitcoin types. I'm trying to explain this in a way that -- [overlapping voices] KODAKCoin is probably built on a theorem. Which is essentially the operating system for it.

GLENN: How is -- I was reading so have some stuff from Milton Friedman. We put it on a monologue on TV last night. But Milton Friedman talked about the internet and said the internet is going to be gigantic, and it will really change things. It will change government and everything else once you come up with a digital currency.

And here we are. We're at a digital currency. And you just wonder, how is -- how are the governments of the world, when push comes to shove, they're so far behind that they don't -- I remember having a conversation with somebody in Congress who sits on a committee for this kind of stuff, and I was talking to them about the technology that's coming. Me. Me. I have a rudimentary at best understanding of the stuff.

And they just kept looking at me and blinking, and they were in a room with a few people, and they were like, huh. We're going to have to look into that. Maybe we should -- we should look at, is there regulation that would -- we should be looking into? And I went, what? By the time you guys even figure this out, it's too late.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And they just -- they have no concept of what's coming.

STU: Yeah, people talk about this, and it's not a matter of whether cryptocurrencies fail because of the governments try to stop them. It's the idea whether governments will fail because of cryptocurrencies. So it's interesting. And I think like, these things obviously been in the news a lot. I think there's different levels of interest. Like the top tier people who are real investors and really know this stuff -- excuse me -- there's a secondary tier.

GLENN: Would you like some more NyQuil?

STU: The secondary tier of people who know a decent amount about it and invested in it. There are people who follow the news and are interested in things like a money supply that the government can't inflate. I think a lot of people in our audience are interested in that aspect of it, the idea that that thing could solve something we've been complaining about for decades, and it's not centralized through a government. I think there's a level of interest there. I think at the bottom of it is just, I like hearing stories about people getting megarich off of things. I love those stories are, like, someone invests a dollar -- we had someone who wrote in yesterday to one of our stories on Facebook and said, they got in an argument with --

GLENN: With their wife.

STU: -- in 2017 about buying 500 bitcoins.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Now, 2013!

GLENN: How much was that?

STU: Let me look at the Bitcoin charge here real quick.

GLENN: I didn't realize was 500 Bitcoins. Somebody in our audience, we have to talk to you. If that's you, you have to call in.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: So how much was it?

STU: I'm looking here.

GLENN: He had an argument with his wife, and she said, we're not going to put money in Bitcoin. And he said, honey, right now it will cost us how much?

STU: I'm looking that up.

GLENN: We should invest 500 Bitcoin.

STU: Can you imagine? Can you freaking imagine.

GLENN: 2013, that had to be --

STU: 2013 we are at --

GLENN: It had to be 200?

STU: To 2013 it changed -- that was the year that it had its first -- what they were calling at the time a bubble where it peaked at a thousand dollars. Okay? But then it ran down with it was -- he said 2012 or 2013. So 2013, it was, for most of the year, about $100. At the beginning of the 2013 it was $13.

GLENN: 500.

STU: So that would have been $25,000, right? 50 times 500 is $25,000. So that's a good -- so you think, I don't know.

GLENN: Now do 500 times let's say $15,000.

STU: $15,000 will get you a return of $7.5 million.

GLENN: Are they still together? Are they still together? We have to track that listener down.

STU: Yeah, he said -- we had the argument, I lost the argument, and I'm still poor was the way he described it. $500 Bitcoins, he must have had some money. But $7.5 million is better than 8,000 in money, at least that's my impression.

GLENN: Is it? I'm not sure. That common core math?

STU: I have to show my work. But that's nothing compared to the goes who founded Ripple. Now Ripple is another cryptocurrency. You have the Bitcoin, theorem, light coin.

GLENN: Ripple seems pretty shady, only because they announced that Ripple was going to go on to coin base, and if --

STU: They didn't announce that. That is a rumor. There's no reason to believe that that's happening at this point.

GLENN: No, I know that but I thought it came from them.

STU: No, I don't think so.

GLENN: Well, somebody -- and it looks pretty -- it looked pretty solid and it went from like 1.50 to 350, 3.90, something like that.

STU: And it's in the high one dollars right now. But it was also 0.06 -- or 0. -- 0.6 cents in 2017.

0.6 cents is what it was. You could have bought these things for 0.6 cents. Now it's different from let's say Bitcoin, as I was talking about, it's not centralized. Right? And it is -- there's a limited amount of Bitcoins that will ever be created, so there's no inflationary risk here. Most of the Bitcoins, 80 some odd percent of them are already out. So there's not an inflation there.

Ripple, they created 100 billion of three things upon inception. So they created 100 billion of them, and the way they gave them away, they did giveaways, they did all sorts of things, but they've only released a third of them. So 66 billion of these Ripple coins are held by the company, which is like three guys who created them.

They're currently about $2 per coin. Okay? So that's a lot of money.

The way this breaks down, Forbes looked at it. It's actually insane. The cofounder and CEO, Chris Larson, who stepped in, he now serves at the executive chairman. He has 5.19 billion Ripple tokens.

And his personal holdings, and a 17% stake in the --

GLENN: He's not $5 --

STU: No, more than that. His net worth currently -- and this is slightly higher than it was now, but net worth personal, $37.3 billion. That would make him the 15th richest American on the 2017 Forbes 400 list.

GLENN: This stuff is going to -- this stuff is going to change the world. Think of the power shift. Here's the guy who had nothing!

And now he's got $37 billion! I mean, you know.

(Laughter.)

In the wrong hands, we -- Hooters is going to be where Congress meets!

(Music).

STU: I got news for you. They're already meeting there.

GLENN: It is a Hooters. Without the wings.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.