This seems to be missing any discussion of non-profit academic society publishers, which in many fields are the dominant publishers and so much better than the for-profit companies that seem more dominant in the life sciences especially. I'm most familiar with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in computer science. Sure, they have their own bureaucracies and added costs, but they run all kinds of other programs and events based on the profits from journals and conferences, including the kind of student scholarships to conferences they suggest. The overall costs are way lower, they're governed by the leading professors who are elected from the membership, they've been far more willing to negotiate with universities in the big transition to open access, and I've found very little meddling of the sort this piece describes.

In ACM / CS, the publishing pipeline is now fully based in LaTeX, so authors effectively do their own typesetting for their own articles. There is now a standardized template for submissions, so the version of the draft you send to peer review is typeset in the same way it will be published in the final version. In my experience, almost always the version that gets published is identical to the final "camera ready" version I submit after peer review.

Finally, peer reviewing is indeed not paid, but the way my fields treat peer review is that you are supposed to review proportionally to however much reviewing you obligate on others by the papers you / your students / your lab submit to peer review. If your paper goes out to three reviewers, you sign up for three reviews. Then for the reviewer coordinator / meta-reviewer burden, if your group/lab is submitting 6-8 papers a year, then you have an obligation to be on the editorial board / program committee, which comes with the reviewer coordinator burden of what a decent sized group/lab obligates on others. Of course, some people are still free riders, and many people submit publications who are not qualified to peer review, but it does change how you think about the "peer reviewing is free labor" issue.