I think this reading appeals to our human desire to interpret things as personality-driven narratives, but I'm not convinced it's accurate. I think many of "Ive's missteps", and the behavior of Apple post-Jobs can be adequately explained by market forces and changes in the incentive structure driving Apple's product development.
During that period, Apple went from being a somewhat niche player for digital artists and enthusiasts to being one of most valuable brands on the planet. They went from having to work very hard to convince consumers that they were worth taking a risk on, to being a coveted status symbol which some customers would pay virtually anything for. I don't think it's surprising that during this period they would push their product line toward higher-margin, less utilitarian products you might want to replace more often for their various flaws.
I also don't think it's surprising that we're seeing Apple signaling a shift towards their old, pro-consumer ways now that the smartphone market is weakening.
Yes it's compelling to think about things in terms of the interplay of a few individuals, and the hubris of a rouge designer, but in general understanding the behavior of corporations through the lens of incentive structures is much more accurate.