I don't think he's denying the merits. You need to interpret closely what he is saying. The essential premise is to say that the product is flawed, archaic and

I don't think he's denying the merits. You need to interpret closely what he is saying. The essential premise is to say that the product is flawed, archaic and intrusive. It's based off of a "toolbar" premise that evolving technology has eclipsed years ago. Then he talks about how the investment in what are also bad promotions, marketing and branding into this effort are all wasted too. They are also wasted in a time where it's incredibly important that Yahoo get itself back together. He's not saying that the logos are the reasons why it's bad. He's just saying that the logos don't make up for a bad product. Further adding that the investment in logos and promotions for a bad product exponentially deepen the wasted effort into a bad product. Even worse, all of these promotions are bad in and of themselves. This isn't an either-or (that its bad because of promotions or bad because of product) but an all-encompassing poor effort in execution on Yahoo's part. The concluding question is why the hell didn't anyone stop this. * Made some minor edits to clarify my post.