The thing at which angry analysis fails

Your frustration is showing.  Your initial analysis is reasonable, that the basis for this
article is the mistaken impression of the writer's manager.  Your relation of a similar
situation in your own experience is a useful analogue to the situation, and explains your
perspective.  

However, your assertion that advertisement is evil is not demonstrated by your premises.
While marketing quality does not map to product quality, this is a widely known reality, and
product research firms exist for just this purpose.  Your declaration that
offensively-marketed products decrease their perceived value to the customer base is also an
acknowledged reality.  Among your problems, you equate advertisement with internet page ads,
spam and cold-call solicitation.  This is an insufficient definition of the term, and
disagrees with the intent of the author of the article.  Beyond this, your conclusion that the
western economy is inefficient because of its dependence upon advertisement revenue lacks
proof, and your prediction of its downfall makes you look silly.  These are disproportionate
claims to make in response to what is merely yet another relatively low-clue article on "Why
Open Source Is Failing."

Please calm down.  Your boss might listen to you if you actually said things that make
business sense, instead of "The solution that doesn't have an advertising budget is obviously
superior.  Only idiots buy commercial software."