It's also trying to suggest that that history explains the dominant computing paradigms today. I think that historically-driven thinking only goes so far when today's hardware is vastly more powerful than anything we used to have. Any paradigm that serves users better could be used on today's very capable hardware, and presumably it would be extremely attractive. So why does this article sound like moving to the old paradigm that it prefers is a lost cause? We're not at the end of history quite yet.