I personally do not see this as that much of an issue, at least as far as the big picture is concerned.
For starters, UP tried to initiate their own platform, existing not just wholly within the US, but only in two very small markets. Unlike their international competition, they had very little chance of sustaining losses while waiting on the rest of the US to get regulations passed. Starting from scratch in such a limited market was doomed from the get go, IMHO.
Also, with the exceptions of NY and CA, states are not going to support more than two, maybe three, individual platforms. There just isn't the liquidity necessary to sustain games across so many platforms, even sharing across state lines.
Then there is the issue of a poorly run (many are arguing this, I'm not an insider, but I'm inclined to believe some of those making the claim) company simply failing in a market with very thin (actually, none at present) profit margins. This happens all the time in the business world, it shouldn't be seen as any real shocker.
Nevada, unfortunately, does not have the liquidity needed to sustain intrastate internet poker, and without movement in other states soon, we will see other sites cease operations there. New Jersey is in a bit better shape, with a larger population and casino games from which to profit.
Hopefully some other states act next year, and we will see some interstate agreements. It will be interesting to see who wins, NV or NJ, in becoming the 'hub' of internet poker in the US.