A new camera "improved" your photography? What do you mean by improve? You mean to say it improved the image quality of your shots? Well then, image quality is NOT composition, and really, the ONLY way to improve one's photography where it matters is in composition. The improvement of image quality simply means one's craap work is just sharper, less noise, and cleaner, but at the end of the day, it's still craap.
In other words, a better kit has never improved one's photography where it matters, and that is composition.
Don't get me wrong, as I am in the "the kit matters" camp, but at the same time I think the only way to improve one's pictures is when one improves their vision, their ability to compose.
On the other hand, image quality is just that, and has NOTHING to do with composition, as IQ only supports the composition and not is the composition.
Another way to say it: Take the cheapest digital point & shoot, and you will find that that camera will compose no worse then the most expensive digital DSLR available for purchase. The only really big advantage of the expensive DSLR is that it provides better image quality, but what good is better IQ if the composition is craap?
Kit does matter, but for reasons that might be different from yours. ;-)
Without meaning to be rude, what you say is rather obvious. It can be rephrased as "Good equipment will not a good photographer make" or "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"
As far as I am concerned a poorly composed image has poor image quality. (You are probably defining image quality in a manner that suits your statement.) And in my book an image that is well composed but very soft is (usually) crap. Image quality is a combination of factors: sharpness, colour, lighting, shapes, composition, emotional pull, and so on. Sometimes an image should be soft, or have muted colours. Most of these factors are dependent on the photographer's skill and vision, not the camera, though in some disciplines, such as sports photography, a certain level of equipment is needed to allow the photographer to realise their vision. But to make a blanket statement as Ken does that the camera does not matter is crass and ignorant.
Anyway most of the points made in this thread, including my own, are rather obvious and trite.
But the key point that I have tried to make is that Ken's article is badly written, badly articulated, confused, and plain wrong. But that is not of concern to Ken. What he wants to do is generate publicity and get advertising clicks to generate his income.