When the comic is willing to shitcan a 20-year-old MAJOR point of continuity, supposedly to appeal to newer and younger readers, anybody who cries that the Osborn hair needs to be preserved BECAUSE IT'S TRADITION needs to sit the fuck down, because newer and younger readers are going to be even LESS indulgent of supposedly "iconic" idiosyncrasies like the Osborn hair than even the most anal-retentive fanboy. Even defenders of the marriage retcon have more valid grounds than defenders of the Osborn haircut, because while a single Peter Parker is indeed featured in the vast majority of other media adaptations of Spider-Man, the Osborn hair almost NEVER is (the closest anyone has come has been the current Spectactular Spider-Man cartoon, which actually gives the Osborns a hairstyle that's more Hardin/Cotten than Ditko).
If Jonah can quit the Daily Bugle to be mayor, or May can be married to Jonah's dad, or Flash can have no legs, or Peter can have his marriage of 20 years undone, then there really is absolutely no valid or defensible reason whatsoever why the Osborns have to look like fucking hair freaks, other than the Silver Age nostalgia of people who - as with every other aspect of the current Spider-Man status quo - would rather ape the style than reflect the intent of its creators.