Meanwhile, Fujifilm thrived post-film by recognizing they're really in the chemical business, and pivoted well (to pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and highly functional materials).
They not only not survived the EFI change, but even went public (via merger) this summer.
If Kodak was in the "business of capturing memories", what would they have done differently?
They wasted something like 25 years dragging their heels because they didn't realize that people don't use film because film is somehow magic. They use it to capture memories. Kodak missed that boat, spectacularly, because they believed they were in the film business. Their answer to digital, for a long time, was "let's market film harder"
(Sidebar: For somebody from outside the US, 100 years is at best a mid-term success story. )
SD cards are currently a $8bn market. Phone image sensors are a $15bn market. Digital camera market is $8bn (and growing, fwiw)
There's also the fact that memories need displaying. I hear OLEDs are popular these days. Kodak did groundbreaking research there too.
There were plenty of ways forward for Kodak that still would've fundamentally kept them in the "capturing images & memories" business without majorly contorting themselves. Instead, they were afraid of cannibalizing their own business. (Their really a canonical example in this area). It's Christensen's "Innovators dilemma".
Yes, the real story is more complex than that one decision, or even a handful decisions. There are other splendidly boneheaded decisions that have nothing todo with "capturing memories", but still a lot with "capturing images" - my favorite is that Kodak, shortly before the Boomer retirement wave, decided "eh, who needs medical imaging" and sold that unit off - but the motivation was the same. They didn't want to move from analog to digital.
And yes, getting these decisions alone wouldn't have been an automatic success - but it would have made further success possible. (One of the major things they would've needed to tackle is that analog is chemical engineers, and digital mostly isn't)
But with all these caveats, the root cause for Kodak's demise is still staying strong to a specific product instead of a bigger mission.
My point is everyone can say they are betting on a non-changing thing and in retrospect it's easy to see what it could have been (in this case one of several, different ones). You've even expanded on "capturing memories" to make it "capturing images and memories" despite the fact they often have nothing to do with each other (medical imaging isn't related to memories, and diaries aren't related to images).
So what do they do? Go for the most abstract (read: big) mission possible? Why not "we are focused on making people happy". It doesn't change. People want and pay money for it.
Kodak didn't find it: they were in the business of analogue film; they could have been in the business of capturing memories, and survived the digitalisation of photography.
Manufacturers of carburetors generally didn't find it; they were in the business of carburetors, and not stochiometric mixtures of air and fuel, and they didn't survive fuel injection.
The list could go on and on. Focus on "the job to be done", not the way you're currently doing the job. That lets you find constancy of purpose.