The quote is substance, but the entire article lacks substance. Just quoting something does not a substantial article make. There's so little discussion or analysis that they could have just posted the quote and said "Argue in the comments".
Whenever one of these things floats up like "Woz likes Android! News at 11" I constantly slap myself on the forehead when it's taken super seriously, as Apple now is so far removed from what it was even 15 years ago. Is it surprising that people involved decades ago think it's not the same, or have moved onto something else? No. Not even a bit.
What? No, that's just wrong. The job of a journalist is to collect hard-to-find information and give it to the public; the "analysis" part is just a nice-to-have. If Kawasaki had written that on a blog post, then the article would be dumb and we should have linked there. But he didn't, he gave that quote to a journalist. And it's a good, interesting, substantial quote that the public wants to read. Thus it's useful to write about even if you have nothing to add, because it distributes the useful quote to the public.
Really, it still sounds to me like you're just upset about reading bad news about Apple.
Actually I stopped getting upset when I read anything negative about Apple when I realised I didn't care enough to feel negative. And I still think they squandered an opportunity for some really good, solid journalism. My opinion of course.
Whenever one of these things floats up like "Woz likes Android! News at 11" I constantly slap myself on the forehead when it's taken super seriously, as Apple now is so far removed from what it was even 15 years ago. Is it surprising that people involved decades ago think it's not the same, or have moved onto something else? No. Not even a bit.