Completely false.
Simplified example: a girl sells lemonade with sugar at 1 EUR a pop at 20% margin and is happy with that. Then she hears about artificial sweeteners which are cheaper, and are indistinguishable from sugar; lemonade made with them is at 30% margin! She'd be a fool for not using the artificial sweetener. She could even cut her selling price, thus likely improving her revenue along with a higher margin, making it even more profitable to switch.
To re-iterate: lemonade with sugar remains profitable, but there is an even more profitable option available, so the producer will switch to the more profitable option. That's probably what's happening with Kodak: it very well might be that 8x10 is profitable, but there are more profitable options elsewhere in their business for the time, materials and funds needed for it.
The initial investment in R&D and machinery has been paid out probably years, if not decades ago, so that's also not an issue. They can stop the machines, dismantle them, sell them for scrap metal, and use the space for more profitable business.
Also, the ad hominems don't help the debate.
Bookmarks