Dra's problem is that he apparently has the idea that technology shouldn't have any any freedom of design beyond the bare necessity of functionality. You'd have a hard time finding any consumer technology, modern or otherwise, that doesn't have some kind of intentional asthetic.
I agree that adding components that look like they should perform a function, but don't, to an otherwise functional device - e.g. gluing gears on - is silly and pointless. But the only object like that is #4, the computer case. Everything else shown here is either a functional device (#1, #3, #6), or a completely non-functional model or piece of artwork (#2, #5, #8).
In the case of non-working models, yeah, well no shit they don't work. It's a raygun, what do you expect? Its sole purpose is to look good. I have a pewter statue of a plane on my mantelpiece, but it doesn't actually fly.
In the case of the functional devices, the computer up top best illustrates my point. All of those components serve a function. If you take away the keys, or the frame, or the pedestal, then you reduce the functionality of the computer. You could replace them, yes, with plastic components. In the same way, you could replace the upholstery of your car with hemp sacking. The car would still work, but it sure as hell wouldn't be as nice to use. It's exactly the same here. Why, exactly, is replacing components of the computer with components which are functionally identical, but aesthetically superior, a bad thing? Answer: it's not, regardless of what motif you choose to use.
#3 appears to be a watch with a cover which you can open by flexing your wrist. Nearly all the components I can identify seem to be involved either with the pulley mechanism or with holding the device together. The same principle applies: you have functional components which look good while maintaining their functionality. No sane person could have a problem with that.
tl;dr I have no idea what the hell Dra is going on about.