Do you have evidence to support any of your opinions? People have been looking at the relationship between applicant selection methods and job performance for as long as statistical tests have been around, and there are no compellingly good methods. People think it's easy until we go to the data and see how their preferred methods worked out objectively over a decent number of hires. Have you done this? How many people have you hired, how was their performance measured, how did they work out?
That would be the whole thrust of the article actually (although the stuff about Google's process being ineffective is all from 2009 which makes it quite old news): Google thought that gauntlet interviewing using methods quite similar to what you're advocating was giving them the world's best employees, because it felt like something that would be effective... but measurement showed that it wasn't.
It's been known to organisational psychologists for ages that the least-worst method is to observe candidates' performance in the actual job environment or a good simulation of it for a week or two. From reading the article and some of the things linked from it, it seems like IT hirers have begun to work this out independently.
I like it when people who make claims provide citations so here's a good entry point to the research: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf