I've seen this kind of strawman argument against Agile before, though this one builds a bigger and more detailed strawman than I've seen before. The problem here is not Agile, it's slapping the label "Agile" on something and then doing something totally different.
The great thing about Agile is that it's not business driven. I mean, of course you the work for business reasons, and the business people who have determined what they need, need to be available to the Agile team (for example in the form of a Product Owner in the case of Scrum), but in the end, it's the team of developers that makes the decisions about how they do it.
Of all the claims that this article makes about Agile, I haven't spotted even a single one that's correct. All of them are quite obviously false. The article is a piece of junk.
The great thing about Agile is that it's not business driven. I mean, of course you the work for business reasons, and the business people who have determined what they need, need to be available to the Agile team (for example in the form of a Product Owner in the case of Scrum), but in the end, it's the team of developers that makes the decisions about how they do it.
Of all the claims that this article makes about Agile, I haven't spotted even a single one that's correct. All of them are quite obviously false. The article is a piece of junk.