I disagree with the writer of this article. I mean, sure, the 3DS version will probably take some of the sales from the Wii U version due to the 3DS being a more vastly accepted piece of hardware (and, by extension, pitting people against the decision of shelling out $360 for a Wii U AND SSB or only $40 for the 3DS version [they'll choose the 3DS version more times than not because it's cheaper]). And sure, the development team's firepower is divided between two games. But that doesn't automatically mean that the 3DS version has butchered the Wii U version. It's too soon for anyone to decide that. To do so is jumping the gun.
I'm actually okay with the decision to make two games because of the way they've been structured. Smash Bros. operates with a majority of the stages being based on already repped franchises, with the oft not seen exception like PictoChat and Hanenbow, while there are five Mario stages. Between two games, that number can now split: instead of four Zelda stages on one game, two for each. Instead of a trillion Mario trophies I could care less about, half a trillion between two games, making room for trophies of characters both retro and obscure. I could care less about an Apple trophy. I'd like to see Hakkun, or something. That'd be cool.
The writer of this article also has to take into consideration how much time went into SSE for Brawl. That was another game altogether. But it's been replaced with a 3DS version of the same game, the only differences being graphics and content.
I also feel that the Ice Climbers will be fine. Pikmin & Olimar, a party of seven, was our first post-E3 character confirmation. Rosalina & Luma operate very similarly to the ICs (to some extent), as well. I think that the statement about the Ice Climbers was less about how Sakurai saw it impossible to put some of our favorite characters on the system and more that doing so may be foreign to him on a handheld system.