I think the point of the article is just the three points Dan explicitly makes -- he's questioning the common wisdom that startups (for a top developer) offer better compensation, more interesting work, and better work experience than larger corporations. I suspect that if he thought he were being ripped off, he would easily move to either a large corporation or a startup where he was getting a better deal.
As for 95th percentile developers making their own products or businesses, that's a completely independent skill with little correlation to software development ability. Beyond writing the software, you've got to market and sell the product, set up distribution channels, support the product, etc. I'd consider myself a respectable developer, but I have no delusions that my development skills translate to any of the other skills required to build a business. I'm generally content to execute in a software development role for someone who has the broader vision and skills to build a business around that product.
And lastly, I wouldn't base an assessment of your skill as a developer on your compensation. In current and previous roles, I've seen a number of salary lists, and there was zero correlation between pay and talent. Some of the most highly-paid developers were near worthless and some of the most solid developers were paid 25-40% less. While it's sad that being a good software developer is not enough to be paid at the top of the scale, we generally have it pretty good in that the decent ones of us are likely to have salaries well above the national average.