My main problem with this article is the fact that the author pits "experience" against "function," and thereby separates the two into different camps. He doesn't have any in-between, wherein there would be a balance of experience _and_ function; instead, he focuses only on the two extremes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a very functional website. I'm a fan of minimal (functional) design, but at the same time, if you're able to make a site beautiful as well as functional, there is no reason not to do so. I thought his use of newspond was a particularly poor example: it is a perfectly functional website, but happens to be very well designed. As a designer, I obsess over the design, but as a user, I have no trouble getting content out of the site.
I would say that experience, from a user's perspective, is about 40% of what is expected. A good experience, a smooth interface. On the other 60% is the functionality, which is a given.
There is no reason you can't have both, you just need to know _how much_ of each is necessary in your particular application.
(This article reads a little like cannon fodder, as well, but at least it brings up a valid--albeit age-old--discussion.)