That Time article leads with a mischaracterization of the debate. I haven't read Outliers, but I did read a bit of K. Anders Ericsson's original work. Ericsson qualified the 10,000 hours saying that it had to be a certain type of deliberative practice, and that there was a limit of about 4 hours per day which could be spent on it.
In other words, it has never been the case that 10,000 hours is all that's needed, only that that is a minimum number.
However, you reject here Ericsson's entire thesis, that being summarized in the Time article as "Ericsson doesn’t deny that genetic limitations, such as those on height and body size, can constrain expert performance in areas like athletics — and his research has shown this. However, he believes there is no good evidence so far that proves that genetic factors related to intelligence or other brain attributes matter when it comes to less physically driven pursuits."
You made a claim that "innate talent or intellectual capacity" is essential to being an expert. This is a widely held belief, first articulated (I'm told) in Vasari's "The Lives of the Artist" (1568). The debate is - where is the evidence which justifies this widely held belief?
You see a danger in promoting this "meritocracy" ideal. I have two objections to that. First, I think you are using the term incorrectly. Suppose we only have innate talents as part of our genetic nature. Under a meritocracy, those who are naturally smarter, etc. will get a better job or higher position than those who aren't. It doesn't make a difference if it was achieved through deliberative practice or innate nature. Instead, I think the better word is 'egalitarianism.'
Second, it reminds me too much of various view of "noble blood" and rusty arguments that women by nature can't do X, that black people by nature can't do Y, and that Swedes are by nature dumb squareheads. There's any number of these stereotypes once fervently held to be true, but which haven't stood up to the test of time.
Also, there shouldn't be a good argument that "people just need to try harder." Ericsson's view is that "deliberate practice requires effort and does not lead to immediate reward" (quoting from a summary by David Zach Hambrick). There are many good reasons to not become an expert on a topic, including: 1) the person could be interested in becoming an expert in another topic, 2) it can be hard to find the 10,000 hours needed for practice, especially if that time is spent making money needed for rent and food, and 3) other requirements may be missing; it's hard to be an expert surfer if one lives in Colorado, or downhill skier in Miami.
The path towards being an expert in anything is chaotic. I am one of the world experts in writing software for a certain subset of biochemistry. But had I gotten a different job just out of college, I would probably be in a completely different field. It's really hard for me to believe that I was born with this talent, given how much education and job-related experience I had through to get to this point.