Man, these articles just get me pissed off.
There's very little about digital, other than actual time to seeing an image, that has *improved* photography - and in many ways the field of work and art-fom is worse than before. No, complete accessibility does not always equal BETTER - and I know some people are going to hop in here on that one.
I know the same kind of stuff was said in the past about various format changes ... 8x10 -> 4x5 -> 120 -> 135 (end of the world!) but this is a fundamental shift, analog -> digital, with almost zero latency review, chimp-driven/non-vision/twitch-driven image making, and essentially a commodity market that relies on pumping out already obsolescent crap rather than giving a damn about cameras or photography itself.
"Indeed, the story of Kodak pictures has already ended, and a new story is beginning. But this new story is one told by the torrent of digital snapshots flooding the Web by the billions. Likewise, little is "immortalized" anymore. Despite the wealth of images, fewer and fewer pictures are being printed. In a way, the world is taking an unusual path back to the very beginnings of photography."
No, they're not heading back to the primordial soup of photography - they're just not giving much of a shit anymore, in general. Twitch based society hell-bent on an attention-driven self, combed over nicely by so-called social media sites which promise to give each individual user their own little stage.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.