I agree with the article. It is not so much he can't design, but it hinders his ability to do so. Design in and of itself is based on problem resolution and a trust the the talent of the designer. There are many times that at first I design something for a client and initially they don't like it because of preconceived notions. I then educate them to look at the whole picture the aims of the project set for and its purpose. The ambiance we wanted to create. I liken it to Starbucks, if researched in its early days it would have shown nasty numbers. Who would buy a 4 dollar cup of coffee, it would never go mass market. Yet they created an atmosphere for success. If I hire someone I give the the problem and let them solve it. I don't narrow my expectations to what I am limited to, nor do I ask the general public about the nuances in the design process. Someone here brought up Ford, and they were oh so correct in the initial appraisal that if researched better horses would have been the answer. Then another mentioned he failed because he only developed them in one color and GM took over. That is true only to an extend. Ford's forte was no in that end of design. It was more of an engineering talent. He didn't have a clue on color. There was no inherent appreciation of design at Google, because they never had a designer in their leadership ranks. I love Google's search engine. Yet, I understand what over analysis means and in the end it will hurt them. Why, because it takes the human creativity factor out of the equation which will leave the audience cold. It won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen. I mean really, if you tested that blue theory in the state of Carolina and polled those at Duke. You would find a great distaste for baby blue, while a deep love a nice dark navy.