Really not understanding the point of the article.
I used to have similar thoughts, but at the end of the day, if you see a massive crowd of people walking in all directions in the street, you can honestly say there is no structure in what they are doing.
The definition of structure is, "construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to"
In my example, their could certainly be some level of organization. They all may be in that location for the same reason that was organized by something or someone. There even may be some global agenda on what they are doing. But overall, there is no structure to how they are flowing and ultimately where they may end up.
In the RDBMS world, we would try to step into that crowd and try to better organize their flow. We may group them up by attributes, define lines to walk in for those groups of people and maybe even give them set schedules on when to walk. That's the structure we are missing from unstructured data.
All that work to apply structure is overhead. It costs the business a lot of money to hire someone like you to provide that structure to the massive crowd. The question this article should be asking and hopefully answering is why do we even need you to structure the crowd? Why can't we just let them flow and pick out what we need when we need it?