Fair question. Looking back over the article, I pretty much agree with the first paragraph. And I think the second paragraph may be true -- I've noticed some changes in my own perspective as well as several friends -- though the matter is definitely not clear cut. There's still a lot of excess consumerism in my own life as well as most people I know (everyone I know that I can think of).
Paragraph 3 bugs me because I've never left a music concert, even for performers I absolutely love, without feeling that I had just way overpaid and invested a ton of hassle (fighting traffic, standing in line, etc.) for less reward than I had hoped for. (Correction: one concert that I got free tickets to was a fantastic experience, leading to family bonding and inspiration for life).
And musical recordings are a huge part of my daily life. I don't see musical recordings vs. concerts as a good example of the product/experience dichotomy. A musical recording represents a pre-packaged experience I can have whenever I want ... and that's exactly how it plays out in my daily life.
And the example of cities offering experiences in exchange for other non-experience goods doesn't work for me. City verus rural is not about experience versus product. There are experiences you can have in a rural area that are not available in a city. City people pay money to take trips to rural areas for "experiences". And of course vice versa. So both cities and rural areas offer both experiences and products.
The thing that gives me the strongest sense of "horseshit" is the claim that technical prowess is taking a backseat to interaction design. I can see how it may appear that way to some people -- and those people are exposed to observations I'm not exposed to (since I'm not currently at a start-up).
However, I simply do not think it is possible for technical prowess to take a backseat to anything. Software development may indeed be the most complex endeavor humanity has invented for itself. The desire to make the experience fantastic -- an excellent goal -- simply adds more requirements and hence more complexity. So the most fundamental thing you need in a software company is technical prowess (or at least, technical prowess is one of the fundamental things you need, and perhaps there are 3 or 5 other fundamental things you need as well).
You could certainly argue that technical prowess is no longer enough -- that developers need to understand "interaction design" too, for example. But that's different from saying that technical prowess takes "a back seat" to interaction design.
If you claim that it is more important for a software startup to have access to strong interaction design capabilities than to have access to strong technical prowess, then I claim that you're wrong. Of course, only time could tell which one of us would be right, but I'd feel very confident that the smart money would be with me.
In summary, I think the focus on the entire experience, like Apple has practiced for a while, is a great idea. But I felt like the article over-stated it, and that almost all of the statements the article made in support of the idea wilted as I read them. That, plus some hyperbole (such as "the era of competing over technical specifications is over", and that interaction design is replacing technical prowess), triggered the "horseshit" response. The article made some pretty big proclamations, what with eras ending and whatnot, and if proclamations like that aren't backed up well, you risk triggering a "horsehit" response.
That said, I don't usually go around telling nice people who've shared their thoughts with enthusiasm that I think there stuff is horseshit. I hope you don't take it too hard. My first instinct was "horseshit". My second instinct was to soften that up and sugarcoat it. I almost always follow that second instinct. But this time, I decided what the hell, why not try a smidgen of radical honesty and lay out my full, unfiltered, honest reaction. And whether we agree or disagree, at least you get a glimpse into one reader's reaction.