I think it's interesting how all these different writings on the web, even if they start from a point of talking about design, circle back to isssues of freedom and flexibility, corporate control vs. an open web. Here, Chimero concludes with the claim that asking "What do screens want?" should be the same as asking "What do we want?" He means it as a statement about designing things with paradigms that support our attitudes towards things like private control and freedom, but it's actually exhoed in the beginning of the article, too.
Earlier in this essay, there is the discussion of skeomorphic design, and how skeuomorphs have been a necessary affordance in order to make computers usable. I think the point made about how a screen is not really any better at displaying a flat icon than it is at displaying a realistic photo is a good one. Chimero identifies the existance of a "grain" in screens, but fights back against the notion of trying to bend ourselves to the screens' desires. Just as we mold plastic to serve our purposes, we should change our sofware to give us what we want, how we most want it.