Right. The goal of the ranger changes has always been to close the perceived gap in efficiency between rangers and other combatants (which is mostly focused on the Beastmaster), to address the problem of favored enemy and favored terrain being useless except in specific campaigns, and to prevent rangers from completely obviating exploration challenges. These alternate features accomplish those goals. It doesn’t make the ranger a top-tier damage dealer, but that was never one of the goals.
No, it doesn't.
For one thing, as many people have noted, the feature becomes pretty bad past level 1. At level 1, the Ranger is still dominated by other classes.
A barbarian 2/day gets +2 damage per hit and resist BPS and d12 HD at the cost of a minor action per minute plus a ribbon (unarmored defence)
A ranger 2/day gets +1d4 damage once/round on one foe, plus a ribbon (explorer)
A (duelist) fighter gets heavy armor, +2 damage per hit and second wind.
A paladin gets a heavy armor, 5 HP heal and evil-dar.
(at level 1, expertise is a ribbon; expertise starts getting good at higher proficiency levels).
The gap is
smaller, but the ranger is still the worst d10+ HD character at combat at level 1.
---
Then, this feature becomes worse and worse every level. Hunter's mark competes with it for concentration (as does every other concentration spell), and besides the spell slot (which gets cheaper) and the minor action it does the same job better; HM scales with hits.
So you trade a feature (favored enemy) for one that becomes obsolete in a handful of levels anyhow. While remaining bottom of the barrel as a weapon user at level 1.
---
Sure, you say, the ranger is better. Why am I complaining?
If I go to a hospital with a gunshot wound, and they fix my hangnail, I'll complain as well.
"Why are you complaining? Your hangnail is better!"
---
A retrofit that is dip-resistant would be to make it not require concentration as of level 6.
That still leaves Rangers as among the worst combatants at level 1. But you can't win them all.