I think perhaps we have all started to get used to SpaceX's amazing successes with their experimental vehicles (and, in the context of rovers - both wheeled and flying - NASA is doing pretty well too!) but they did seem to be trying to highlight on the commentary that there is a sliding scale of "success" on this one that even at 100% still ends up with the entirety of the two vehicles destroyed in the sea!
Goal 1 - shuts down safely and doesn't vaporise the vehicles and the launch site
Goal 2 - gets high enough before vaporising the vehicles to not vaporise the launch site
Goal 3 - gets to separation and then vaporises both the vehicles
Goal 4 - gets to separation and then only one vehicle vaporises ...
... etc., etc.
In spite of the article author's disappointingly ill-informed snark, what SpaceX want most is information/telemetry and they don't always need to "stick the landing" to get what they need. Once they have what they need then they move onto the next thing.
They didn't need any more starship landing tests because, at that point, they decided not to bother with legs any more - they are going to catch it.
They haven't bothered trying to catch it yet because (a) they want to make sure the tiles and heat shielding work at re-entry speeds and (b) they know they can deliver a Falcon 9 to a ship with the necessary precision so they are assuming they can do the same with this (likewise with the booster)
... etc., etc.
If anyone is actually interested in the SpaceX thought processes behind a lot of this then I really do thoroughly recommend the interviews with Musk (and the starbase tours) that Everyday Astronaut did and has on his YouTube channel.