Why is a writer with no professional design experience offering up a critique like this? I'm tired of seeing design criticism that is entirely subjective from p

Why is a writer with no professional design experience offering up a critique like this? I'm tired of seeing design criticism that is entirely subjective from people with no credibility. This kind of thing shows up with any logo or design change in products created by major tech companies. It's completely condescending towards the professional designers who worked on the changes and completely ignorant of the entire process (i.e. business goals, discussions, meetings, research, testing) that was taken to arrive with these new icons. The author tries to sound scientific several times with sentences like, "having a distinct color is important to type and design in lots of ways" or "Darker colors pop more against a white background than yellow or the tiny bit of red, making the icons seem to have heavy “L” aspects to them" but he doesn't offer us any further information. Why is a distinct color important? Why can't a group of colors be distinct, maybe even more distinct than a single color? Does he think the design team at Google hasn't thought of everything that is brought up here, or that they haven't done user research to actually determine if the icons are difficult to distinguish? If the author is going to make claims about these things being hard to see, then he should present his own user research. Without something to back up their claims, articles like this just reek of stubborn grumpiness - something people use everyday is slightly different and they thought it was just fine before! Eventually they get used to the new thing and the process will repeat itself with the next rebranding.