Totally agree. I think it's less about criticism and more about lobbing verbal hand grenades that aren't constructively adding to the conversation or offering any valuable critique. A type designer is well versed on what good type looks like--and that kind of input is fantastic.

To me, it's more about the unsolicited "here, I made you something better" sort of gut reactions that take none of the constraints in mind. Of course we're going to like what we can art direct better.

That said, people appeared to be literally offended by the Uber branding. That is worthy of criticism as well.

Not everything that's cheap to produce is healthy or good for you, lazy criticism included.

Agreed. If you are a customer and care about the brand, you are entitled to your opinion of it.

That opinion might change too. Over time a logo might grow on you again. Logos are containers for brands. When a logo changes in a dramatic way it looses what it had and starts fresh.

What hes reacting to, and we should stay away from is declaring it "bad" or "good". You can say you don't like it and why, but we should avoid declaring it a failure right off the bat.

Its just like any design critique. We should approach offering our thoughts in meaningful ways whenever possible. In the least it will keep us fit for our real critiques at work.

Most of the Uber criticism amounts to "he isn't a designer!" -- How is that healthy?

The author wasn't talking about criticism so much as the knee-jerk "verbal hand grenades" as Justin Mezzell put it.

People are entitled to their opinion, of course, and criticism can be healthy, of course, but unfortunately a lot of people have problems when it comes to the way they express their opinion. I think that's what the author is referring to. At the end of the day, as a designer you have to be able to take critique, but you absolutely should not have to take rudeness along with it.