I said small but significant, commonly I think people who see the artistic merit, lots of pro's switched not because they thought digital was better, but because it was a job/business requirement. I don't have that issue, so I can work in whatever format I like. Nobody, can convince me, that anything digital can beat a good, hand made AgX print, properly mounted and framed.
The new market for film, may be very different from what we are used to. I expect that most film will come from Asia or Eastern Europe, I can see Ilford being a part of it, I can see Kodak being a part of it, a much smaller Kodak that could get bought out by an Efke or Foma to give them a better access to the North American market, and access to Kodak's colour technologies.
Technically there is nothing in basic photography that needs a major manufacturer, cellulose acetate is available from industry (it's not just used in film manufacturing), emulsions are a combination of simple chemicals and chemistry, you just need a method of coating the emulsion on the film. Processing chemistries, especially for B&W is all simple chemicals that can be mixed up at home. Colour might be more difficult, although the major difference is the colour couplers, and coating would be even more critical. It would always be possible to do 3 exposures onto separate frames with 3 primary colour filters, then use a dye transfer printing process.
Even without a Kodak and a Fuji. film photography will survive, in some form or another.