Only in the last article was there a writer who didn't admit to using film for his personal shots (family, etc). That alone tells me film is going to be around for a good long time. People might use it as a business-expediting tool, but they rely on film for the images that are personally important.
What does film have to do with this? Simple: film, like wine, is an organic process. It reminds us of our past, it teaches us about our senses, and it makes us work just a little harder. It can be frail and it can be unforgiving. It reminds us that a photographer's place should always be behind a camera, not in front of a computer. Think about those beautiful digital prints, for example. They can be printed 57 times and will always look the same. But what if they should each be different? I chuckle when I see numbered edition prints from an Epson 4400. 3/57 looks identical to 57/57. It's like trying to discern the difference between two cans of Coke. I'll take my prized; hand printed 16 x 20 Howard Bingham print of the Beatles and Muhammad Ali any day of the week.
From the 2nd Article:
I'll still take my M-6 on vacation.
From the 3rd Article:
I still carry a Leica M-6 and Fujichrome for the Davies family archive. I will trust my history to film. I know I will be able to pass those slides along to our son someday and he will have the unique and distinct pleasure of seeing his life memorialized in tiny, sparkling tableaus, as I have.
I'm less sure what he'll do with the Zip disk of his birth pictures, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.