This nails the heart of the problem - every company needs to fulfill the needs of their customers, their staff, and themselves to continue to operate successfully. But VCs add additional needs of speed and returns.

If your bootstrapping is failing financially, or not meeting your own needs (as described in the article), VCs are a valid choice to kick it back up to try to succeed. Better that than shutting down. But the anti-VC perspective is talking about a different scenario: If your bootstrap is working, they would argue not to take on VC just to speed it up or meet some cultural expectation of a funding milestone.

Which ultimately sums up the article for me - their particular bootstrapping wasn't working for them, so they switched to the VC route.