Damning, but not accurate and a weak argument.
While the author broadly paints digital as uncreative (which I disagree with), Kodak is somehow creative. No. Digital can be both uncreative and creative. Film can be uncreative and creative. Think of all the kodak gold 100 sold to make muddy birthday party and vacation 3x5 and 4x6 photos! The author is remembering what is good about Kodak, not what was popular.
To contradict the author, taking photos of things we wouldn't have bothered previously is likely to be creativity. It didn't start with digital. Look back to Duchamp's urinal or Man ray's photograms or Stieglitz's cloud photos. They used the technology to make new art from the mundane.
The article also gos on and on about how the bankruptcy is a tragedy. It created a tragedy, but the actual business activity that led to it is inept leadership and not tragedy.