Fuji are a huge corporation in which photography and cameras are a tiny part. I'm sure they make a profit, but unlike Nikon whose output depends almost exclusively on optical products, they may be of less importance to the bigger picture. The traditional big two of Canon and Nikon, whose reputation was built in the film years, have been less able to cope with digital innovation than some others. Their approach was to keep on making DSLRs as they did SLRs and their other camera lines were clearly after thoughts and largely rejected by the new camera buyer.
Photography is a tough business. Samsung, who recently emerged with an outstanding camera and have a track record of very interesting products, announced they were getting out of the market completely. When someone of Samsung's size and ingenuity decide they can't turn a dollar making cameras, it's easy to see why Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and the rest are desperately trying to carve a niche that gives them an identity. The problem for small format digital cameras is the same as small film size equivalents, the larger format manages to shrink its over all camera proportions to meet the smaller film size, removing its reason to exist. What was true of the half frame Olympus Pen F cameras still holds for the MFT Pen F, the bigger "negative" can be had in a similar size camera.
People say lens size is the X factor that gives small formats their advantage, and there's some truth in that. However if you want the optical appearance of the larger film/sensor size - shallow depth of field for instance - you're very quickly into massive apertures and big, expensive lenses, again removing the advantage. Smart phones have killed the cheap compact market stone dead, the lesson is innovate or die. With sensor innovation being little more than pixel proliferation at the current time, camera manufacturers are where they were in the 80s and 90s, promoting novelty and calling it progress.
