Probably they are primarily optics companies and cameras aren't necessarily their biggest earners anyway. Fuji makes more money from instax than digital. The camera companies that get involved with phones seem to be panasonic (they makeor made phones anyway, and they had the cm1 i think it was), samsung had a camera/phone hybrid, and leica lend their name to one of the eastern brands (huawei?). Oh and kodak (in name at least, maybe no direct descendant of old kodak) produced a cheap phone that was photo-oriented and had some sort of integrated print service. Of course sony are now big players in professional level cameras, and they also make phones. Looks to me like market segmentation. Small cheap compacts have been pretty much killed off by phones, so the cameras that remain are much more capable hardware. And they do try to integrate with phone apps, just never very smoothly (in my opinion). Sony is probably the most interesting, where you can download software for your camera, via your phone, use the phone as a remote etc. Others similarly. Fuji has an app for printing from tablets etc to their instax printer. So it's not like the camera companies aren't aware of mobile devices.
Personally i hate using my phone for taking photos, much prefer proper cameras.
As to cloud services, they have to be paid for one way or another, and there are already big players in the freebie market (though i'm not sure whether recent changes with google+ affect that). Flickr now charge c. £50 a year roughly for a pro account (1000+ images). Pretty sure i saw other services were similar, unless you don't mind poorer quality, adverts, and the AI classifying you as the wrong species. Again, kodak or someone using their brand was looking to set up some sort of cloud service (may have been as an aid to deriving revenue from your pics ). That sort of thing runs into copyright etc sort of issues that i'd rather not think about, just being an amateur.