Proposition E is actually in line with his point: if you read the article, WinRT development remains free. It's Win32 development only that now requires a paid Visual Studio license. So, in essence, what I read the original poster as saying is:
"Visual Studio is sufficiently awesome that full-time developers--the ones who need Win32 support--can easily afford $500. For those who can't, Microsoft is making a deal: they'll give you a free copy of Visual Studio, but it's only good for targeting the new Windows 8 Metro environment. In other words, if you're willing to take the risk of developing for the new hotness that currently has basically zero apps for it, Microsoft will foot the bill. If you want to target the massive installed base that is Windows 7 and younger, you foot the bill."
I'm not saying I agree, but the argument is coherent.
Thank you for pointing this out! I tend to read comments before the article to get a feel for the cultural context and perceived value of an article (it filters a lot of linkbait), and then I jumped the gun here. I've added a note to my original comment.
After having read it, the article's title really doesn't fit the reality. If you want to develop traditional win32 apps, you can keep using VS2010. VS2011 has all the latest and greatest tech for them, but that's similar to the present divide between Express and Ultimate. This article appears to be trying very hard to frame the debate or sensationalize things.
It's fair to point out that if this trend continues into the next generation so that VS2010 becomes a sort of ghetto-compiler it's very bad, but we have no reason to believe right now that it will. Microsoft probably isn't stupid enough to shoot themselves that hard.
"Visual Studio is sufficiently awesome that full-time developers--the ones who need Win32 support--can easily afford $500. For those who can't, Microsoft is making a deal: they'll give you a free copy of Visual Studio, but it's only good for targeting the new Windows 8 Metro environment. In other words, if you're willing to take the risk of developing for the new hotness that currently has basically zero apps for it, Microsoft will foot the bill. If you want to target the massive installed base that is Windows 7 and younger, you foot the bill."
I'm not saying I agree, but the argument is coherent.