You didn't quote the rest of the brightness dabate listed in the article..
"When it comes to that HDR argument, though, much can be said for the total contrast afforded by an OLED TV’s perfect black levels. When you start from perfect black, perceived contrast requires less intense brightness in those highlighted areas for HDR programming, and the end result for the viewer is similar to that of a much brighter QLED TV – at least in a dark room, anyway. In rooms with a lot of ambient light, a QLED’s brightness advantage can be very helpful at delivering that big visual punch HDR content should deliver."
It's similiar to the old LCD vs Plasma debate. Plasma was the superior in every way, except brightness. The Pioneer Elite & last Panasonic Plasma's were still considered the best TV's for color reproduction, contrast, black level, and motion. Finally to only be dethroned recently by OLED. This is from professionals/videophiles who spend their life examining this stuff either through their careers or just out of passion. LCD won over the populace due to it's secondary characteristics such as price, and again perceived brightness as being better picture quality. Way too many other things to list in contrast.
So it's simple. Do you watch TV during the day in a room with a lot of ambient light & a brightly lit room at night? Or can you control the amount of light in the room and do you prefer to watch movies in a darker environment like a movie theater. The QLED will lose it's contrast and black level in dim light, as to where in a bright environment it would look to be more on par with the OLED.
It's your decision... Both are good, but one is older technology trying to be made better, the other is new & state of the art and will continue to improve exponentially.
Remember, lots of people thought HDDVD was the future and BluRay was gonna lose that format war too.
Edit: And here's an article from only a few months ago (11/17) to back up my Plasma statements.
https://www.lifewire.com/oled-vs-plasma-3276234
.
