The long term view is that Apple also became the world's most valuable brand with exceptionally loyal customers.
Except some of their most loyal customers have been switching to other laptops that made less sacrifice. They could have pleased new comers and loyal customers, and kept a better reputation by delivering a higher quality device, instead of becoming just a fashion statement.
They grew because of their obsession with thinness, BUT at some point they should have recognized the diminishing returns, that people wanted battery life and real keyboards. They left money on the table, with regard to opportunity cost, that wont ever be calculatable, by not changing their tune once they became thin enough.
Nothing in the article argued otherwise.
The fact that these design decisions have been integral to making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world probably indicates they were good design decisions.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, or a good decision. The use of gas for powering cars made a lot of companies very valuable, but one can certainly question that decision in light of the impact on the environment. One can cite plenty of other examples where a decision made sense if you look at it in a very myopic sense, analyzing only the short term financial implications... while the longer-term view yields a much different analysis.