I thought the review was thoughtful and well written. The only part that I have a differing perspective on is the "Postscript–Be careful what you wish for"
"No. Anticipating, or with actual knowledge that they would not longer be able to sell backs to fit on the market's leading platform, the H series Hasselblad, Sinar, Leaf and Phase One did what they had to – find alternative camera platforms. What should they have done? Said – Oh well, no more places to put our backs. Guess we'll just curl up in a corner and die."
Exactly right. All of the remaining companies in the medium-format business, both back and camera makers, have been doing what they have had to do. The few remaining camera makers couldn't go on losing buckets of money making camera systems without the revenue from digital backs to sustain them and the back makers need camera platforms. That camera makers and back makers would combine in some way was inevitable. Hasselblad was simply the first to take a step in that direction, but the combining of finances for back and camera makers had to happen eventually–even if Hasselblad did not exist!
"So in the end, and likely faster than they thought it would happen, Hasselblad found that while they no longer had to compete with Sinar, Leaf and Phase One in selling digital backs to go on their cameras, they now had two new camera to compete with AND no more third party backs to generate camera body and lens sales for them."
Based on conversations that I've had with various people at Hasselblad over the past few years, I can tell you that the partnerships and product developments from their competitors in the back and camera markets come as no surprise. It is exactly what they have expected to see develop for the simple reason that Hasselblad and their competitors are responding to the very same financial, technological and market pressures that have been building up for years in the medium-format market's transition from film to digital. The market and financial reality is what has forced Hasselblad and their competitors to change and adapt. It is NOT Hasselblad product announcements that are creating the necessary changes in the financial, product and marketing relationships between camera and back makers.
"I thought that this was a dumb move on Hasselblad management's part then, and said so, and believe this to be the case even more so now. So, as the saying goes – Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it."
Nobody, including Hasselblad, ever wished for a market where camera makers lost money at an alarming rate and digital back makers profited, but that is how things have developed over the years. It is where things have stood for too long of a period to remain static. You may wish for the good old days, but the party is now over and somebody has to start collecting to pay the tab. You may not like the price to be paid in the loss of unrestricted compatibility, but the continued trend in this direction would have happened regardless of any wishes–even if Hasselblad had just disappeared.