It seems odd that the writer first bashes MM for just getting in a room with some designers over a weekend, criticizing the concept of doing something so important in such a slapdash fashion, and then bashes her for polling the company about what they'd like to see in the logo, because it's "Design by polling". But - doesn't that show they did a lot of work upfront, that it wasn't just a slapdash effort?
The whole article reads like a bitter rant from the company that didn't get hired to do the work, instead of a thoughtful discussion of the logo itself (I'm not saying that iA was in the running to do the work, just that the tone is oddly hostile).
The whole thing feels like a marketing play, to be honest. An attempt to gain some attention by riding the media wave about the new Yahoo logo.
There's nothing wrong with that, per se. Plenty of agencies, SaaS companies, and service providers do it. Hell, plenty of agencies get hired to do it on behalf of their clients.
What rankles here is the tone. As you say, it reads "bitter." The author's confrontational style does him no favors. It piques our interest in his agenda (whatever it may be), rather than in his content.
There's a difference between opinionated and rude. I don't think rude in a company blog makes the organization look good. I'd be less likely to hire them because it seems they can't provide constructive criticism without being jerks.
The whole article reads like a bitter rant from the company that didn't get hired to do the work, instead of a thoughtful discussion of the logo itself (I'm not saying that iA was in the running to do the work, just that the tone is oddly hostile).