Yes and no. Let me start by saying I use systemd and have never seen any of this as a problem big enough for me to switch.

The Unix philosophy is that a program should do one thing and do it well, the old init.d system did exactly that, but systemd does more than just start programs, for example there's the systemd-logind service which is used to authenticate users. Why is this a problem? Because some people don't want to use systemd, therefore they don't have logind, so if something were to depend on that, like GNOME's GDM did for a while, it would be impossible to use it without systemd. So in a way people complain about programs becoming dependant on systemd, and systemd grabbing more and more responsibilities to the point where it would become an integral part of Linux, it's not that systemd is a problem now, is that it has the potential to become so ingrained to everything that it becomes impossible to remove. But in the meantime systemd does provide some advantages, including parallelism which makes the computer boot faster.

Should you switch? Not really, this is more a philosophical debate on what Linux is and should be, I agree with all of the philosophical points and don't think programs should depend on systemd, but I don't think that's directly systemd's fault.