There are without question conspiracy theories embedded, the reason I decided to write the piece in the first place <g>
Actually, I don't subscribe to the "conspiracy theories" concept...to have a conspiracy theory implies that some intelligent beings have gotten together and decided to do something in concert. In point of fact, I think the industry actually suffers from the LACK of reasonable conspiracy activities....
I personally know two of the most knowledgeable display technology experts–one who designed the Sony Artisan series of displays and the other who designed the Spectraview series of displays (Andrew knows who I mean) and while there is "discussion" between them, my preference would be to lock them into a hotel suite for a long weekend (with a supply of great wine) and not let them out till they come up with a conspiracy plan to fix the industry...
The biggest issue really is that the market for computer displays is actually driven entirely by the consumer TV industry. High end displays for computers is actually a very small market segment. What the two experts I mentioned have done is to work the system over the years to sneak in high end computer display and color management technology into an industry segment they really doesn't want it (we do, but the manufactures really don't).
The bottom line of Andrew's article is really that users need to be aware of the limitations of display technology and learn how to work around some of the issues-the biggest being that the luminance output of many displays is simply too high.
The other aspect that Andrew doesn't mention in depth is the role of the viewing environment in general when working at a display. Yes, you can special case the situation for when you are trying to soft proof an image prior to printing but the fact is that the rest of the time your environment must be controlled when you are doing regular image editing. There are strict ISO standards that one can follow but probably the single most important aspect of the viewing environment is one of consistency throughout the day and night. With today's high output displays, there's no reason to work in a dark cave (and several reasons that's a bad idea). Ambient light is good as long as it doesn't strike the display and is low enough that with the light on your eyes adapt so that back on the display appears black. If the ambient light is too low, you'll actually tend to see light coming from the black areas of an image because your eyes adapt to the overall darkness. Ideally, your general working environment will not be much different when you switch into soft proof mode and turn on your viewing lights...and that's important so you don't set up a disconnect between your general viewing environment and your soft roofing environment.
The other little trick Bruce Fraser taught me is than when trying to achieve a display to print match, don't try to have both in the same visual field...they can be side by side if space is an issue but separated so that you only really "see" one rendition at a time. Glance to the screen then glance at the print. Your eyes will adapt immediately...but if both are in the same field your eyes tend to fixate on what's different and can lead to an appearance of difference even if the real difference is very slight. You tend to get hung up on that stuff...
I think Andrew's article should be required reading prior to posting questions here on the forums...at least now we can just tell people READ THIS!
One small nit to pick...the color temp of "tungsten" is actually 3200ºK not 3400ºK. 3400ºK was the color temp of "photo flood" bulbs...(shows Andrew's age on that one, who here still remembers photo flood bulbs)