A friend of mine who's a career marketing guy feels strongly that it's a law of nature that any large, non-commodity market has room for exactly two large players; everyone else merges into "other". E.g., Fender/Gibson/Other, Canon/Nikon/Other (consumer SLRs, I'm thinking of here), Intel/AMD/Other. It's possible to quibble with specific examples (are American cars one market structured as Ford/GM/Other, and Japanese cars a different one with Honda/Toyota/Other, or what?), but as a general analysis it seems to hold together.

Well, the printer market settled down some time ago to Epson/Canon/Other. I suppose Kodak could wedge themselves into the "Other" category alongside HP, Brother, Lexmark, and so on, but if they want to sustain a large company on the printer business, they need to knock off either Epson or Canon (much as Canon, not that long ago, knocked off HP). That would be a seriously tall order for a company *without* Kodak's burdens; for them to choose it as their best path for restructuring looks, from out here, absolutely bonkers.

I don't suppose it bears one way or another on the fate of their film operations---it was always pretty clear, IMHO, that they weren't going to go into Chapter 11 and say "we will reemerge as a dedicated film company", so the question of what they mean to do with film---keep it, sell it, or kill it---remains open. The quotes in the BJP article suggest that "kill it" would be unlikely, at least.