If you've seen the video, it's reasonably clear that the initial signs of trouble - i.e. the start of the explosion - happens right at the top of the First Stage, perhaps where the Second Stage engine might be situated within the casing.
If you've seen the video and have any clue what you're talking about - it's abundantly clear that the the first signs of trouble appear where the second stage umbilical attaches to the vehicle. (Right about where the intertank bulkhead is believed to be.)
Yet on this, Ars reckon that they know what the fault is and that the fault lies with SpaceX. They may even be right...
Well, no. The article makes no mention of the location of the fault and no assumption as to who is responsible. Or, to put it another way, your claim is a complete fabrication. (And yet, you claim to not be a SpaceX fanboy.)
There could be literally scores or hundreds of reasons behind the failure. That failure could be design, material defect, or process in nature, or it could be an obscure combination of several things. It could quite easily be a failure induced on SpaceX because of constraints imposed elsewhere, by someone else.
Yet, the fact remains, this is the second accident related to the 2nd stage. (Which carries a higher proportion of the total d/v than is normally considered acceptable due to the requirement to conserve d/v in the first stage to allow recovery.) And given the relatively small number of flights of the F9, having two accidents raises grave questions about the reliability of the launcher and the capability of the operator.
And even if the failure was the result of constraints imposed elsewhere by someone else, anyone with a clue (and who is not a fanboy) knows that it's SpaceX's vehicle on SpaceX's launcher - and SpaceX is responsible for building and operating a vehicle that doesn't blow up regardless of the source of the constraints.
I'm quite certain that there will be people who read this comment and think ("Ah, SpaceX fan-boy there...")
The problem isn't that you're a SpaceX fanboy (though you claim otherwise, you work very hard to give the impressions that you are)... It's that you have utterly no clue what you're talking about.
Eric Berger (the author of the piece) does indeed know what he's talking about - and he's not the only knowledgeable person wondering if SpaceX shouldn't stop constantly iterating and concentrate on the basics and flying out their manifest.