I don't know why you would comment something so "simple" (if you actually read the article, if you didn't then I'm wasting our time) when the author clearly (albeit sarcastically) points out that "Obviously designers have no right to comment unless they were in the room with the Uber designers during the design process". Surely you should come up with a stronger rebuttal than simply paraphrasing _his_ sarcastic comment?
I think he has every right to point out that the design is bad (I think it is too) but to me many of the phrases reads like he knows that the designers behind the logo also thinks it was a bad design, and that the designers suffered during the process. He shouldn't speak on behalf of the design teams thoughts or processes and stick to commenting on the final result.
Maybe I just read some of the sarcastic parts too literally.
> "Obviously designers have no right to comment unless they were in the room with the Uber designers during the design process"
I think we can all agree, that when it comes to the quality of a logo or visual identity, the end customer is always right. If people paying for Uber services can't recognize Uber, or get negative associations with their visual identity, no design process can make up for it.
