No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad design, but when you hear a chorus of people complaining about the same thing, it's highly suggestive that it is. Both Windows and Ubuntu tried the crazy menu thing and elimating the start menu. Both had to relent and go back. That's a pretty shitty design, and shows both of them weren't thinking.
IMO the UI architects have become too radical for desktop UIs. Many complain the deskop UI hasn't changed in 20 years.... as if that's a bad thing. The UI to my car hasn't changed either. Steering wheel, brake, accelerator, ignition, gearshift all in standard locations. Headlight switches move around, which seems to serve little purpose, but it's a relatively minor complaint. A stable UI isn't necesarily a bad thing, but if you look at how much UIs have changed in MS products, you'd think they change it more often than hairstyles.
Meanwhile 20 years ago I learned shell programming and some simple unix piping output between standard programs, and I've gotten quite good at manipuating the command line. I don't have to re-learn it all every 5 years because someone thought of a "better" way to do it. At the same time I don't really want to go back to manipulating endless system config files with a text editor, or using freaking tar/zip as a package management tool. If a UI improvement solves an actual problem I'm all for it, it's just the stuff MS has done lately doesn't seem to solve any problems, only create them.
To me moving around the UI components is sort of like re-arranging furniture. It might help a bit, but if you want a happier user there's better ways to go about that. If you want to keep the system up to date... instead of forcing the damn machine to restart, why not just re-engineer your system so you don't have to restart? Email really stinks.. mostly because it's a big box with different time requirements for different emails. Why not address that problem instead of putting a fancy ribbon on everything?