That is the key insight here, particularly when you see what other branded gadgets this Bullitt Group have, Kodak have just become a brand name that can be licensed by third parties. There is no connection to the Kodak we know, impetus came from outside.

It seems that Bullitt can innovate, their camera-phone for Caterpillar has some thermal imaging aspect to it. Here I think they have gone for nostalgia with the name and form factor rather than innovation. There certainly is no leveraging of Kodak's patent portfolio going on or anything truly new brought to the product, a decent interface with a few more advanced settings is expected.

I think an opportunity was missed here. Kodak made photography accessible and easy, that could have been the thing here with an auxiliary camera that worked with someone's phone to bring decent zoom and optics to them. They could have also made the camera double up as a recharging brick so there would be reason to always have it with you. If it also had USB-C storage for your device with cloud backup and some VSCO service for the pictures then it could work.

The first Kodak digital cameras for the pro-sumer market had a programming language that you could use to get the camera to do things. You could get it to work out the height of a building by focusing on the top and then the bottom - it would do the trig for you, fantastic. Maybe a Kodak camera could revisit this and make it work for the IoT connected world, so the Kodak camera could be set up to do ad-hoc CCTV, timelapse and other things. Or just a remote camera for taking selfies, a market could be made for that even if the product was sold on doing super clever stuff. Instead there is this nostalgia trip.

Kodak is an "innovators dilemma" case study, and what they're doing by bringing in an outside group to compete with itself is exactly one of the solutions that is often prescribed.