They clearly have absolutely no interest in serving me content or helping me do what I want to do
... coming from the site owner side of things, I'll offer a friendly counter argument (which has been rephrased in light of down votes): site owners are interested in serving you content, or helping you do what you want to do ... just in a better way.
I agree ads or prompts can be annoying, but to say site owners go through the trouble of developing a mobile app and advertising it b/c they have no interest in serving content or helping the user experience doesn't quite fit. To me, a site that offers a mobile app says the exact opposite.
A link at the top would suffice. Or the bottom. Or anywhere, really, that doesn't prevent me from viewing the content I was trying to view.
Edit: In case it's not clear, I think the article is written about full screen overlays that I'm describing. If not, I'm all wrong here and my posts probably don't make sense. I'm totally cool with a site mentioning that they have an app and that I should get it. What I'm not okay with is when you are prevented from accessing the site until you agree or disagree to get their app.
They clearly have absolutely no interest in serving me content or helping me do what I want to do
... too literally. I believe the trouble of developing and offering a mobile app supplements their motivation to serve content, in a better way.
But your point was well stated, and it's clear you're not against a better mobile experience, but rather the manner in which it's advertised. In which case I agree ... shoving a full screen ad down a user's throat is frustrating.
I've experienced this a number of times. The UX is more than just the App. It is how people get your app and more.
Since I moved to Android and saw the permissions their app wants (access to my phone calls and calendar, among others), I've found a great alternative: they can wait until I get to my desktop, if I bother remembering.
But yeah, they're in 1% of the world where app is more useful than the site.