A few.
First, he claims that Apple Pay isn't a significant improvement over chip and PIN. I would disagree on that point. Unlike Apple Pay, the credit card number and expiration that the chip sends is the same as the one on the front of the card. This information can still be captured and used illicitly on websites that do not do any further verification (there are way more of those out there than you'd expect). Hackers are not currently able to make any use of the information Apple Pay sends over.
Then there's this doozy of a paragraph (emphasis mine):
For one thing, he's really mischaracterizing the US system. Almost no one checks signatures here. It's more of a "promise to pay" than any form of cardholder verification and it's not even asked for for small transactions. If anything, that should be a strike against Apple Pay adoption in the US. Also, NFC payments aren't the sole reason people decide to choose a specific device, so the characterization of the iPhone/Apple Watch as a "more expensive contactless card" isn't fair, especially since you're still allowed to use the physical card if you want. And once more UK merchants upgrade their terminals, Apple Pay will indeed become a replacement for chip and PIN for large transactions as well.
Oh, and this article was written before Apple brought loyalty program support to Apple Pay.