That analysis is from 4 years ago and is wrong in many, many ways at this point. As for "the general consensus", I'd like to see evidence that's true among real enterprise users. (FD: I work for Couchbase.)
Investigated the grand parent's question myself, though not extensively. The stackoverflow comment contains a lot of items which aren't true (couchbase does have document id's). The replication is multi-master but is cluster wide, which means couchbase has really nice tools to manage adding/removing nodes but doesn't offer ad-hoc replication (AFAIK). The SO comment also lists a bunch of things which won't matter to many devs like pure http-rest api as they'll end up using client libraries anyway from a middle tier layer.
Not to say Couchdb doesn't have many great advantages like the rest api and self-hosted apps, couchbase does to my mind seem like a good but not 100% alternative to couchdb (and vice-versa). Mainly I like that incremental map reduce is still available along with the atomic type of documents and revisions but clustering is still much more developed in CB.
Can you elaborate on how it is wrong at this point?