Kodachrome was one of those glorious anomolies that appear in a markets from time to time that happened to be very good - but there is no way that we will see it revive, unfortunately.
I have no idea why or how the process was discovered but the resulting transparencies were streets ahead of the competition (including Kodaks own E6 films) to the extent that unless the client insisted on an immediate turnaround or colour from low light situations there was no alternative to it. Whilst working at the press agencies, Kodachrome was the first choice for color - if it was too dark for pushed Kodachrome b/w was shot. The alternative E6 films were appalingly bad in comparison.
This is why at the Olympics, World Cups, Wimbledon tennis etc Kodak would either install a Kodachrome process line at the press centres or arrange courier dispatch to local process. In retrospect it amazes me the extent that Kodak (and later Fuji) went to to enable their films to be used professionally. They would even give custom colour correction factors for shooting Kodachrome in the stadium lights, enable pushing 200asa etc - awesome service for an awesome film.
That said, Kodachrome is a classic example of a vertically integrated product that "might" have declined due to lack of competition in its sector.
Kodak made the film, Kodak constructed the chemistry, Kodak ran (even under licence) the process lines. There was no way to shoot a Fuji or Agfa Kodachrome and process it in the smae lines nor to substitute Fuji or Agfa chemicals in the process line. This is closed vertical integration - which works fine when supported by the producer but falls over when they step away from the product. Unlike E6 (or C41) which is open; films, chemistry even process machinery can be mixed and matched from different suppliers - this leads to competition, on price availabilty and quality and eventually longevity of the process.
If the Kodachrome process (films, chemicals etc) had been more open (even under licence) it is possible that other ways of producing may have been discovered, possibly even more economical production or processing for smaller volumes. Not guaranteed but possible.
The time for opening up Kodachrome was back in the '80's when Fuji launched Velvia and then Provia. We moved over en masse. Why? E6 process that could be run on a small(ish) dip and dunk at the agency - run when we wanted or needed it. I know how much Kodachrome we shot per week and how much they lost from us. If there had been a small processor things might have been different as when the process was available e.g. Olympics Kodachrome was shot instead of Fuji.
If the process had been opened up back then, we might have been in a situation of having smaller more econiomicl processors available, different film manufacturers even home chemistry - big leap but so was going to the moon!
Que sera........
I loved shooting Kodachrome, missed being able to use it easily over the last ten years, mourn its passing with a regretful shrug of "well, what if...." but know that Lazarus is more likely to go on a world tour than be shooting any Kodachrome ever again - whoever tried to produce it now.
Sim2.
*loved the yellow box*