Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you see with the collapse of these companies is more concentration of market power, not less.
Please explain this with Kodak.
But in fact we have seen a lot of consolidation in the photographic industry. Back in the days of film everyone had to choose from a select few manufactures of chemical film. but people who created photography had a wide variety of equipment manufacturers to choose from, and those who did it professionally had a wide variety of sales channels into which to sell what they produced. Good photography was valuable and many thousands of people could support themselves as freelance photographers.
Now we still have a decent set of SLR vendors. There's Nikon, Canon, Sony. Um, probably some Chinese manufacturers. The point and shoot market has been eclipsed by the camera phone, for which there are now exactly two platform providers.
But the collapse in price of photographs also produced a collapse in value of photography. All those freelancers found their sales channels dry up. There wasn't Look or Life or Nat Geo or hundreds of other publishers who needed photographs and were willing to pay top dollar for excellent work. Instead photographers found themselves trying to sell the rights for pennies on a few photo agency platforms, or more likely surviving entirely on event work.
The choke point at film manufacturing went away for sure, but we have a new choke point at the publishing and delivery end, and this choke point exerts vastly more control over the entire industry than the film duopoly ever did.