I think everybody should pause for a bit and think back three to four decades or so. It was about that time (from the sixties through the early to mid-seventies) when the explosion of high quality 35mm equipment occurred. Prior to then, there were essentially two streams of photography - the difficult and technical and expensive (much of it professional), being one stream - and the "you take the picture, we do the rest" amateur and snapshot photography which provided huge volumes of business for Kodak and others.
There was some crossover - hobbyists using leicas and the like - but essentially the volumes were in the snapshot market and the benefits that flowed from those volumes (profits, R & D, a healthy dealer network, etc.) were shared across the industry.
Then, in the sixties and the early seventies, with cameras like the Olympus OM1, the Canon Ftb, the Minolta SRT 101, the Nikkormat and others, high quality 35mm SLRs became much more mainstream. The growth really started. The real explosion occurred with cameras like the Canon AE1 and Pentax ME and the models from the various competitors. These were and are high quality cameras, they were compatible with or formed the core of profession quality systems, and they were priced to be affordable for the more casual user.
As a result, the availability of high quality equipment was incredible, and we became somewhat spoiled. We came to expect that the equipment and materials we wanted to use would be easily at hand, because they were carried at the local "photoshop", who were serving the interests of so many casual snapshooters, and their high quality equipment.
Various alternatives were produced over the years to attempt to meet the needs of the casual snapshooters (126, 110, disk, even APS) but 35mm still had cachet, and the materials and systems involved in those other formats were similar to the materials and systems we use, so we continued to benefit from the economies of scale flowing from the casual snapshooters' use.
The difficult reality is, however, that the casual snapshooter is more interested in immediate results, ease of use and convenience then quality. Digital photography "promises" greater ease of use and convenience, and certainly offers immediate results, of a sort. It also has great cachet, and involves the newest and most popular, rather than the highest quality and best. Paradoxically (is that a word?) it also offers even more opportunities for the "gear obsessed" than anything other than leicas
The phenomema that we are experiencing now is that the casual snapshooters who supplied the volume of business that made our segment of photography so convenient and available, have deserted most of the analogue photography market. The volumes and profits and distribution chains have gone with them. It may be true that digital is better suited to what matters to them, but sadly their desertion also impacts on what suits us.
Kodak and others may be able to retool somewhat - they have had successful, smaller divisions before. New suppliers may appear, but they may have difficulty offering to customers all the benefits that Kodak and others offered before.
What is clear, is that if there is a market for the equipment and materials we wish to use, and that at least some of that equipment and some of those materials can be made and sold for a profit, someone will try to fill the need. I think that it is clear that there is such a market, its just the profitability that is in question.
It is true that our expectations have to change, but it is also true that they need not be abandoned.
There are probably not enough of us to cause another "explosion" in the marketplace, but there are enough of us to be meaningful.
Kodak and others are in the business to sell stuff. Keep asking for it, and buying it when needed, and providing customer feedback, and you might be surprised how long you may be able to continue doing so.