It has nothing to do with being blunt, Noel. It has everything to do with yet another example of trying to prove the truth of a proposition by using reverse inference. That can't happen.
It's the logical equivalent of claiming that the Antarctic glaciers melted and millions of people worldwide were driven from their homes and drowned in the ensuing floods, all because Johnny's mom drove him to school last Thursday in a gasoline-burning automobile. Had she made him walk to school, those damned glaciers would still be there.
One can successfully argue upward from the many specific instances to a single generalized conclusion. But one can't reverse that direction and argue downward that the generalized conclusion is the root cause proof of any one of the specific instances. That's what you are trying to do. That's why your cause-and-effect lines don't meet.
All companies need to make a profit. We all know that. We are not ignorant. But telling me "companies need to make a profit" tells me absolutely nothing about the feasibility of manufacture of the IR film in question. And implying that as the primary reason for the discontinuance of that IR film is a blatant attempt at reverse inference.
What you are saying is that companies need to make a profit, Efke couldn't make that profit by manufacturing IR film, so Efke went out of business.
As if there were no other aggravating circumstances. Except that there were. Read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) by someone with intimate knowledge of the Efke crash-and-burn. No mention whatsoever of IR film as the specific aggravating circumstance.
And still, none of the above addresses the base question posed by Nathan earlier, and subsequently echoed by me.
Ken