I feel that beneath the surface, this is a poorly reasoned article that only works if you are confused about the difference between visual design and product design. Which is weird because the author makes a point of distinguishing the two.
His confusion probably stems from the assumption that great visual designers will become or should become great product designers. He's seeing beautiful products fail, and worried because the visual designers weren't solving important problems for users. But why would they be? They're visual designers.
His way of evaluating design doesn't make a lot of sense either. Facebook may be fine with Paper's performance if it is intended as a platform where they can experiment without disrupting the experience for most users. Carousel's engagement numbers probably have less to do with the design than the fact that it's hard to get users off of other photo management apps that they already use.
His confusion probably stems from the assumption that great visual designers will become or should become great product designers. He's seeing beautiful products fail, and worried because the visual designers weren't solving important problems for users. But why would they be? They're visual designers.
His way of evaluating design doesn't make a lot of sense either. Facebook may be fine with Paper's performance if it is intended as a platform where they can experiment without disrupting the experience for most users. Carousel's engagement numbers probably have less to do with the design than the fact that it's hard to get users off of other photo management apps that they already use.