I agree that a large investment is needed, but this is what the vast majority of companies with innovative products do.
Imagine if medical device or pharma companies took Harman's approach! (Fortunately there are agencies like the FDA to keep an eye on this.)
Lucky have just released their ISO200 CN film ... looks nice, first time. They made an investment.
...but they are not a pharma company.
They work in an industry where there's interest for not perfect products and they take an advantage out of it. Why is that a problem?
I'm pretty sure that if they would've had the financial and technical power to market directly a complete product they would've done that: imagine the impressive launch "hi, we're the old bw lads, remember us? Now please take this 3-times-better-than-portra-film at 9.99£, kodak sucks, fuji can't even coat their acros, now we're off to the pub, bye".
That would've been the smartest approach. Having money and tech and time, everybody would've done it and made 10 times more money than these small releases of prototype films.
So, 2 hypothesis: 1-they're really not smart 2-money/tech need to be raised somewhat.
(i've probably botched a lot of contitionals in this post, i hope the idea is still comprehensible)