Fuji has done virtually the opposite of Kodak's corporate striptease: they've bought dozens of companies they perceived as strategically relevant and integrated them into the group. Kodak's development has been a more typical Western one where the rationale is to determine if splitting up the business might create larger overall shareholder value vs keeping it together.
Making normative statements about this is very challenging; while the general public may be appalled by the demise of well known brands, keep in mind that economic, societal and other interests don't necessarily align with continued existence of the brand/core company. Sometimes, subsidiaries that are split off from a group do really perform better that way. On the other hand, it's impossible to predict the future, and as such there's always inherent doubt about decisions about splitting up a company and possibly sacrificing parts of it in the process.
In any case, a massive disinvestment from silver based photography has obviously been a sound decision. While it's tragic for us and our hobby/passion, from an economic and societal viewpoint the logic of locking capital into an essentially dying industry has vanished decades ago. Whether one chooses to strip down the business and let it peter out (Kodak) or try and move to other, more relevant fields (Fuji), the net result from our perspective and arguably from many other perspectives as well is pretty much the same. You either end up with no film from a nonexistent company (Kodak), or from no film from a company that has moved to greener fields (Fuji).
Long story short, we can hang on to a brand name for sentimental reasons, but it's not going to change anything about the fact the world has moved on. Make the most of it while it lasts; it's nice we can still shoot Portra and Ektar.
