Speaking as a 25 year continuer, I must say that I believe the choice is necessary. The collapse of the Anglican Communion has demonstrated, beyond doubt (IMO) that there is nowhere else to go. As much as we would like it to be, Canterbury is not an apostolic see. We must get back to the truly apostolic Church and that means being in communion with one of the apostolic sees.
Clearly, I felt the need to leave Anglicanism for Orthodoxy. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This has not so much to do with technical/legalistic points of whether one is in communion with an apostolic see as it does with whether there is a true apostolic succession of the fullness of the faith, as well as of the laying on of hands.
If you believe that your Anglican bishop is a bishop in a tradition that holds the fullness of the apostolic Christian faith, then you believe that he is a successor of the apostles, and you should believe that where he and his flock are gathered together in Christ's name, there is the Church in its fullness. If one doesn't believe that one's bishop is a bishop, or that the fullness of the apostolic Christian faith is believed by that bishop and his flock, then I would think that one would choose to seek out something else. You seem to have arrived at that conclusion, or to be in the process of coming to it, and things will take their natural course as a result of it.
My point was that it is a bit presumptuous of the author in question to tell Anglicans that they *must* choose between Rome and Orthodoxy. Most obviously they need not do any such thing, unless they want to, and most don't.
Statements like the one I quoted from this author remind me of the "you Orthodox *must* be in communion with the Roman Catholic church, or you're not in the Church" stuff. It speaks of legalism, of juridical conceptions of what makes one a member of Christ's body, and generally, of putting the cart before the horse.