Technologies have come a long way, I don't think you can extrapolate the first couple of years into the future, ad infinitum. There's always going to be a spike in advancement in the early stages which may result in loss of compatibility. Everyone is far too invested for half the data in the world to suddenly become unreadable (obviously not just photographers and photos, but it's all the same).

I'm not convinced about the whole thing anyway. I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could get at pretty much any digital photograph regardless of when it was taken.

On the other hand, a print isn't just a print as I'm sure you're aware. Quality varies massively. And the life of a print is dependent on any number of factors, from the quality of the paper and/or the inks, the quality of the glass and the framing, the conditions it's kept in... to being dropped when they move house.


Quote Originally Posted by Zeke View Post
...
I believe one of the major pitfalls of digital delivery is the fragility of the medium. I would very generously estimate that 99.9% of domestic households have the infrastructure to effectively archive digital media. The vast majority of photographers don't even have such a system in place!...
Think I might be mis-reading this, but are you suggesting that photographers are the anomaly in digital storage capabilities? ie a 'normal' household has the ability to archive the files, but a photographer doesn't?

EDIT: Is there a 'don't' missing from your OP?

Quote Originally Posted by Zeke View Post
In short, I have more faith in the longevity of physical prints than digital files...
Why? Just an assumption about future compatibility?