Just about every assertion in this sentence is wrong. Is there anyone here who would defend it?
He is basically saying that switching to digital has opened the door to inifinite technological progress. His basic assumption is that mobile phone in 10 years from now will deliver an image quality equal to that of our current best cameras. I wouldn't bet much on him being wrong on this account.
The flaw here, so widespread that it might in fact be reality
, is that he is obviously overlooking many important aspects of photography (talent, composition, light, moment, location,...). He is one more of these many people for whom photography is still aimed mostly at capturing reality. Per this definition, he is 100% right, mobile phones will soon capture reality as well as today's high end cameras.
How could we blame him for this perceptional gap though? We claim that the photographer's abilities makes 95% of the photograph, yet we keep talking about high resolution, DR, detail capture,... we keep differentiating our work using the brand of the cameras it was shot with (there was one great example in this very thread).
Photography might have been an art form in the film days, but every line we - photographers - write on its technical aspects in the digital world is one additional nail we stick in the coffin of photography as an art form. We de facto contribute to the mobilephonization of our work.
We are not alone, camera manufacturers are also doing a great job at this. The digital revolution is the metrics revolution. An object can be assessed along a limited number of axis, starting with pixel count. Benchmarks have also been invented, supposedely to measure what matters to photographers, and cameras are designed so as to perform well long these axis. People debate within the pre-defined box, but forget that the key thing is to fight the metrics themselves.
This is a beautiful example of self fullfilling prophecy when you think about it.