The author of this article completely ignored all of the features that actually make people use Ember.js. Router, naming conventions, project structure, container to manage objects. It's possible that in the future Ember.js will use plain HTML components and JS features like Object.observe, but it won't mean that suddenly its code will shrink to 1kB, because it's not all there is to the framework.
My summary of that text: "I don't know how frameworks work, so let's not use them".
I'm not saying that the author doesn't know what a framework is in general. What I'm saying is that this article can be boiled down to something like: "Javascript has support for feature X, Y and Z, therefore we don't need any frameworks". I should probably also not list Ember's features in my comment, because it's not only about any specific feature - it's also about conventions and app architecture.
I think that the underlying concern is valid, ie. we would all be better of if we all joined forces and push for web standards, which can be used in any framework. The problem is that the conclusion, ie. we shouldn't use any frameworks to achieve that, is wrong.
Framework authors care about standards and I personally think that each framework will try to adopt more and more native JS and HTML features, but it doesn't mean that we won't be needing frameworks anymore.
"The fundamental idea is that frameworks aren't needed, use the capabilities already built into HTML+CSS+JS to build your widgets. Break apart the monoliths into orthogonal components that can be mixed in any combination"
Also this is a man with a very rich history in terms of the Web and Web standards so writing him off without giving what he is saying any real attention seems silly.
My summary of that text: "I don't know how frameworks work, so let's not use them".