"There’s this concept in the industry that all successful companies use monorepos, so in order to become as successful as them, yours should too."
I have never heard this notion uttered anywhere previously and I have been closely following the Mono-Repo-Not-Mono-Repo controversy for several years.
We had 30 odd services in a multi repo setup, we recently moved them all to a mono repo. The new mono repo structure so much easier to work with.
Under the old model (non-monorepo), you merge and release one repo. Then you have to open a pull request in another repo to do a dependency bump. That step is busy work that doesn't provide real value to the business, and it's something you need to regularly if all of your repos are being actively developed.
The article says that all the good things of monorepos can be done elsewhere, but doesn't say what monorepos are bad, except that the author thinks it is bad that a monorepo lets you easily test a change all your software at once instead of letting you ship broken code that is only noticed at runtime.