> If you plan to use your USB mic with its own headphone jack, then most of what is written here does not apply to you, and you can regard the microphone as a small, not particularly good, simple audio interface just like one of the boxes you might otherwise connect to you computer.

Yup. This is true. I recommended the Samson Q2U or Q9U in no small part because of this. It is a single-purpose audio interface and it's fine for people who want a good-sounding Zoom presence. They are also both microphones that provide some nontrivial improvement when they are used over XLR, which can rationalize later buying an interface once you've decided that you want to do so.

> If you're making a podcast, or working with some audio where the highest possible fidelity to the original sound isn't particularly important, you're probably going to be just fine with this resampling taking place. You can use your USB mic, the operating system will resample one or both audio streams, things will seem to just work, and you'll probably be happy with the results.

As it happens, I agree with the general thrust of what they're saying--for music. This is a reason why I have a very large and moderately expensive digital mixer. But they themselves are not intending to cover general-purpose, spoken-word uses, like podcasts (which I think one can reasonably expand to "teleconferences"), with their criticism.

So can you enlighten me as to your point?

I think the document speaks for itself. USB mics are a mistake, in general. If they do duplex (record & playback), they are sufficiently less of a mistake to maybe warrant no concern. Manufacturer's took the easy path ("easy! just plug it in!") when they should have been encouraging people to stick to the existing path ("not that easy, but not hard either!")