Well, i think the article point the obvious and many of us have stated this years (yes, years) before. SSD is not the same as hardware-based, FPGA, non-customized NAND appliances...
The points made are not truly accurate. And, quite blatantly wrong, btw. Please fix.
1. NAND is not more durable than disk. It just happens that when you have lots of it (SSD or NAND chips) the time it takes of rewriting over the same cell are diminished, hence wearing out is PE cycles become less of a problem. Yet, that doesn't make an AFA/SSA any more reliable than a standard dual-controller mid-range array.
2. Capacity is not a problem of the past. It is the problem. AFA/SSA might get to 1/GB, but not without compression, de duplication and thing provisioning. As much as we want to say Flash is the answer, it is still long ways to go to absorb the PB of capacity that currently live on Hybrid NAS and Block arrays. And let's not forget that reliability is still in question.
3. NAND is no better predictable than disk. As a matter of fact, it is it's very mature that makes it more volatile and risky, hence the massive investment in coding data protection to make sure that the data doesn't flip when voltage changes, or christalized contamination hits a NAND cell, etc. I've seen unpredictable failure ratios on Flash that above and beyond those that I have seen on disk.