Not only that, but his countering suggestion is a single word, "value", that he doesn't define or substantiate. Beyond any simple idea of what people want, you almost always need to build a product that they can use and like to use, and that needs good design. Not graphic design -- interaction design.

Why so many of these content-less posts on HN front page lately?

Design is about solving problems. That's the point that you have missed entirely. While I'm on it; engineers are designers too. Pick up any book about software engineering that you care to choose and the word "design" will be used extensively, especially in reference to solving problems. With regards to aesthetics, this is simple: the more elegant the solution, the easier and arguably more desirable it is to use.

And what design has to do with that? If your product does not solve a real problem it is not worth to exist with or sans design. If it does, design is important.

(I submitted this, but don't know the author personally, so there are some assumptions built into to the following.)

[edit- regarding issue of straw man perception] The issue is that nobody who makes beautiful novelty thinks their own work is beautiful novelty. (So nobody will appear in favor of it, even if they make it.)

So it's not quite a straw man. Everybody agrees that a certain type of thing is bad, but nobody thinks they themselves are responsible for that thing.

I suspect the author has some specific start-ups in mind but didn't want to call them out. Why have people be distracted by the drama of him dissing $startup in a blog post when he really wants people to ponder a more big picture idea?

I’m not entirely sure why you are attributing things to me I never said and I’m also not quite sure in what context you are responding to me. What’s this “beautiful novelty” you are talking about?

Ah, I just meant that things can seem like a straw man if nobody is arguing the other side... but it isn't a straw man just because nobody identifies with that side (but do actually live and breathe that side).

"Beautiful novelty" is the phrase he used to describe "pretty (but) shitty" start-ups (another phrase in the post).

I know what the phrase means but I think examples are kind of necessary. They don’t even have to be real.

I’m guessing people who think that looking pretty (which is not the same as having good design – though the author of this text seems to believe so) is all that’s needed are really out there. Some. Maybe. I don’t know. But that doesn’t seem to be a view embodied in any way on the website he was linking to and specifically saying he was responding to.

I can’t find the arguments he is responding to on the website he says he is responding to. I think that’s kind of important.

I can't speak for him. But for me, "beautiful novelty" is often a site that impresses me, but doesn't convince me to use it (even if i am its target- so it's not like just because i don't have a dog, and it's a site for dog-owners or whatever).

I imagine that beautiful novelty, like beauty, is subjective and something not everybody would agree on a case by case basis. Though I bet most people have seen a site that had no flaws, was stunning (and yes all you designers- i know it's not just visual, it's interaction, etc) but still didn't convince your head or your heart.