"I do disagree that computed properties are not common; in an Ember application you end up using them everywhere!" is no different than a C programmer arguing against Java: "I do disagree that pointers are not needed; in a C program you end up using them everywhere!"
Speaking of Java, I wrote a small REST service using functional style. I showed it to another Java programmer. He said "That's terrible! It's not object oriented."
Who's more intelligent, you or a male weaver bird? I asked the weaver bird. "I am totally more smart that EvilTrout. He has no concept of a proper nest. He simply couldn't attract a mate with his weaving skills." The late Douglas Adams put best. “For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
I'm not that concerned about the accuracy of your Angular facts. I'm more concerned with your claims that Angular sucks as an Ember substitute. Of course it does. And conversely, Ember sucks as an Angular substitute. You know Ember so well that it's become the standard to measure everything else. Until you lose your heavy Ember accent when speaking Angular, you just won't hit the impartial sweet spot to truly advise others between the two approaches.
I find an easy trap to fall into is the false goal. Goals for a web app should not be OO or MVC or idiomatic or avoiding primitives. Those are all academic jargon. Those TEND to be good hueristics to help you get your goals, but no business succeeded because they picked a language or framework that was more objected oriented.