[motohagiography]

The cute'ification of design is definitely a thing. When you think about what something is supposed to signify, it appeals to certain aesthetic reference points. Within a particular critical framework, all design is to signal alignment to perceptions of power, and reflecting the ones from your customers minds is how a product succeeds.

Personally, I find this kind of design originates in those corporate retreat exercises where you co-operate in infantalizing play-time and people are forced to compete to demonstrate submission and remove indicators of individual quality or personality as "edges" that create friction to the dynamic flow of power. In the design language, removing edges and clear lines that might signal "either/or, black and white" thinking in the design reflects this value of passive, liquid, flexibility - which is the opposite of decisive, directed, or forceful aesthetics of 80's, 90's and 00's coroporate design languages.

Compare it to the 90s-00's Italian Futurist corporate design language of some major internet companies, which was perhaps in hindsight an unfortunate choice, and was the polar opposite of the unthreatening startup languages of today.

The values implicit in the design are fascinating to consider, but a critical view of them would take the topic into more controversial territory.