which is the result of the change in processor. There is, of course, an undertone of bias in the review against the M1.
It's like someone reviewing a tesla car and complain that it's difficult to charge because there's not enough chargers in the road networks and gas stations don't cater for electric vehicles. A valid complaint about the tesla car, but not caused directly by the quality/capability of the car itself.
It seems obvious that Morehead's opinion seven years ago about 64bit being unnecessary in mobile was incorrect, mainly because today's mainstream phones ship with more RAM than 32bit would support, but that doesn't mean every word Morehead types is now ritually unclean. He was wrong about something; it hurts his credibility but doesn't banish him from the conversation.
Besides, unless we think Morehead doctored his screenshots, it's pretty hard to argue that his review is nonfactual in its entirety.
More specifically to your point, I don't see why there has to be a separation between hardware quality and software experience when the user (A) can't buy the hardware without paying for the OS too, and (B) can't use the hardware without using the OS too.
Moorhead's review literally contains this sentence:
> The new M1 processor is impressive, but far from perfect- it has many warts, that nearly nobody is discussing.
He then proceeds to describe not warts of the M1 as a processor, but rather warts of the 3rd party software ecosystem. I think overall the review is fine and not in bad faith, but it's easy to see how people are latching on to that sentence. If he were honest about making it a review about the overall product experience, rather than the silicon, he wouldn't need to write that sentence.