I am speculating, but I believe this was because so many people focused on the Michael Arrington reference which was just a starting point, not the main focus o

I am speculating, but I believe this was because so many people focused on the Michael Arrington reference which was just a starting point, not the main focus of the essay. By switching that to something completely noncontroversial (a bicycle shed which may not even exist physically) he was showing how you can come to the same conclusion without the lightning rod in there, and also at the same time emphasizing what he was really writing about.