I'm not sure Neuralink would disagree. Their first applications are medical, not consumer mind-reading. They're open about their bigger vision being farther away.
> Neuroscience is far from understanding how the mind works — much less having the ability to decode it.
We don't necessarily have to understand everything about the brain to communicate with it. And we'll learn a lot in the process.
> a neurotech device would have to add significant value for a consumer to get one implanted in her skull.
Again, I don't think Neuralink would disagree. I guess the disagreement is in whether an implant could provide that significant value. And nobody really knows yet, of course. A lot depends on how well the brain can adapt to a new form of I/O.
> Consumer brain-recording devices have been on the market for roughly 15 years
Yeah but the technology is totally different and quite lame honestly. Existing devices have fundamental limitations that are not shared by an actual brain implant. Not a strong argument IMO.
> Helmets and other headgear face an uphill battle to adoption
The external hardware for an implant can get pretty small. Much less obtrusive than the given example of Google Glass.
> It may be more taxing to control a device with a BCI than without it
Pure speculation at this point.
Honestly it is wise to be skeptical. But mostly I am skeptical of the timeline, not the eventual usefulness of the product. Neuralink is likely too early, but one day useful consumer brain implants will be possible.