Your link is to a sour-grapes blogger's negative anti-Apple blog who claims that developers and others "FEAR apple."
As a graphic designer he did not like Apple's change in the looks of the User Interface and has been loud and bitter about it ever since Apple made the change in iOS 7. He was and is irate about Apple "flattening" the look of iOS and OS X. Using that as a springboard, he proceeds to launch a screed of Apple's horrendous business practices and other heinous sins, primarily against developers.
I did not PING the group to the thread because it is just one Anti-Apple hating blogger's opinion piece. . . filled with discredited quotations taken from cherry picked articles. Marco Arment, the author of one of his primary source articles, wrote him correcting his mis-statements about his citations of his article in the comments. . . and arrogant to the end Schiff gets in a Twitter argument with the author attacking his own source author about what Arment actually meant and said, until Arment gave up in disgust, while Schiff left the mis-quotations in the article instead of correcting the record.
It is no wonder that Utilizer likes this article and posted it: The blogger, Eli Schiff, criticizes everything Apple does and uses false evidence and unsupported innuendo. . . similar to Utilizer's methods of posting.
"You continue to blatantly and intentionally ignore accuracy. It dramatically weakens your argument when your examples are false." — Tweet from Marco Arment to Eli Schiff
Eli Schiff has been making negative comments about Apple's User Interface design for years. Why give him more space for his worthless, negative, and, in the words of one of his primary sources, demonstrably false screed?
It just doesn't meet the level of accuracy, interest, or truth for bothering the 700 members of the ping list.