It doesn't play for me embedded, but if I navigate in a new window to the video, it does work, using
this link.
The question that this situation tends to bring up with me is what to make of the implicit assumption that survival of the firm is the most relevant factor to consider in industrial evolution. Kodak and Fuji followed different paths, and in keeping with Japanese business culture, Fujifilm as an entity (or rather, a complex, interrelated mass of entities) remains active, while still remaining recognizable as a brand and a business (even though they don't use this brand name in most applications). Kodak, on the other hand, performed a corporate strip-tease act that fits very well in Anglo-Saxon business culture and while what remains of Kodak today has very little to do with what it once was, its technology has spun out in different areas - some more successful than others.
What I have not seen to date (but it's probably there in the business literature) is a decent comparison of the total annual revenues, employment, net profits of the Fujifilm conglomerate vs. all businesses that originate in Kodak. Such a comparison is of course very difficult to make as it's inevitably 'contaminated' by all sorts of external influences. But it's societally a much more relevant comparison than the question what remains of a specific legal entity today. Yet, 'we' (us photographers, but also business researchers) tend to focus on Kodak vs. Fujifilm as business entities, and that brings severe methodological and practical problems with it.