I don't think it is a matter of big bad Kodak killing products for no reason. I think it is a matter of Kodak being unable, and/or uninterested in smaller scale production. It's not that a specific product is unprofitable in all situations, but rather that Kodak either can't, or won't scale product production to meet smaller demand. Smaller, more nimble companies that can produce on a smaller scale have an opportunity here, if they can deliver something at least approaching decent quality. The resurrected and profitable Ilford is the best example. How much do you think Ilford's paper sales have increased since the 900lb gorilla got out of the game? How much more SPX will go out the door because of the demise of HIE? Kodak simply isn't interested, or is unable to internally justify servicing what it views as niche markets, and so when the demand for a particular product falls below a certain threshold, they bail, while a smaller company might be happy with a few million in sales left lying by the curb. Kodak will concentrate on what is still working, like Portra. It's very cold, and very corporate, and that's what Kodak is, a giant corporation, answering to it's board and shareholders. There are plenty of people at Kodak who love film, and I think if they could change things they would, but from a business standpoint it may be impractical, and I also don't think the management can justify small scale production of niche products to board members and shareholders, who are looking for profits and dividends, not film and paper.
It's not some evil conspiracy.