One counterargument is that people who claim "worse is better" are often making excuses for why their preferred technology didn't win.
Often in these arguments, worse means "shortcut" and better means "won". The difficulty is proving that not taking the shortcut had some other advantages that are assumed, like in the article.
Winning is temporary. In 1900 Britain has an empire for example. Colonialism won right? The battleship, answering machines, VHS, the compact disk, steam engines.
This "victory" is fleeting. When people people tell you C++, a language which didn't even exist when I was born, is "forever" they are merely betraying the same lack of perspective as when Britain thought its Empire would last forever.
Often in these arguments, worse means "shortcut" and better means "won". The difficulty is proving that not taking the shortcut had some other advantages that are assumed, like in the article.