That was not the point of the article. In fact, had you read the article, you'd find that your point has been addressed three times over and that the author acknowledges it's all futile anyway.
I don't think he quite does. His conclusion is basically that image protection isn't worth it, because more exposure is better. That's different from declaring it to be futile.
Exactly. I read the article. At the end he declares it isn't worth it, which is a different sentiment altogether. He seems to believe that his last-minute addressing of the screenshot "attack" is adequate, even though earlier he was talking about an audience which is a developer themselves. For such an audience, his mitigation of the attack isn't really effective at all. That's what I was pointing out. He just forgot about the standard he set up in first part of his article when writing the update.
