In general, I'm not with the author on this point. I've played 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder and the one thing I'm ever so grateful for, is that 4e created a much more clean, clear and concise structure to the game that made for a lot less room for confusion at the table for everyone.
I'm currently in an active Pathfinder game and a 4e game. In 4e, the game runs smoothly, the rules don't get in the way much, and even the newest player has a pretty good idea of how to play their character. At my Pathfinder game, there are a lot more rules related questions thrown up and newer players seem to have a harder time understanding how everything works. It's very telling when the 4e game has 1 copy of the rules compendium on the table and the Pathfinder game has 3 copies of the main book.
So I've seen it from both sides and really, I just much rather have a very clear, rules system that allows the GM and the players build their narrative on top of. Instead of one where people struggle to read through pages of text looking for the one right rule on how to do something.
I'm not saying 3.5e/Pathfinder are bad systems, I just feel that they read better then they play. 4e books are DRY. I won't argue that. Wizards could have done a MUCH, much better job adding more interesting text to the books, but for all the dryness, it doesn't get in the way of the game as much as Pathfinder does for me.
In general, I find that a rules structure like 4e has worked better then 3.5e/Pathfinder at a real table with real people. Not just experienced players but new players as well. And at my tables, it's not an issue of an experienced GM. The most experienced GM is the one running the Pathfinder game. A good GM can only do so much and then it's the system that takes care of the rest.
Lastly, I don't see the 'it plays like a spreadsheet' people talk about with 4e. The games are just as descriptive, colorful, engaging and fun as 3.5/Pathfinder. But when people ask me what my preference is, I unquestionably say, 4e.
But to each their own