I don't agree with the definition, and I will offer an example to illustrate why. If your wife was raised on "the man must be given his way" she may very well accept that letting you have the red car and forgoing the blue car she wants is "just how it goes." That solution accepted by both parties is certainly no "compromise."
Choosing green might be a compromise. If she wants blue and literally cannot abide the thought of red, and you have the same basic perspective but reversed, and both of you like the green, maybe her not quite as much as she likes the blue and you not quite as much as you like the red, that's not only a compromise but probably a really good choice.
If she gets her blue car and you get a new phone that's the kind of 'tit for tat negotiation' I was referring to earlier. It's a very valid form of negotiation that can resolve the conflict, but it isn't a compromise. The weakness that is inherent in such a negotiation is that you are incentivized to really hate the car you are obliged to accept, because the more you hate it the more phone you will be rewarded with.