While I feel that the headstock is not pretty, it is far from the only ugly one. And remember the hideous G&L headstock is one of Leo's so he didn't get it right every time...
Although the Bite design might put some people off, there are a few things stopping a change:
Inertia.
The impact of 'validating' the criticisms, especially when there are clearly some customers who are happy with it.
The sort of people who spend hours picking apart their design and business model probably aren't their target audience. Dare I say they might be seeking younger and more adventurous musicians who want a cost-effective route to a 'custom' bass (and I would argue they are more 'custom' that Fender CS basses which are really 'limited editions' not (potentially) unique to the customer ones).
Cost of a new design.
Existing stock.
It's quite brave - compare Ashdown being equally bashed about for their similarly priced basses being even closer copies, is it possible to win?
Upsetting early adopters who may in future show brand loyalty.
Emotional investment, especially if one of the owners of the brand invented it.
It has achieved it's main functions - being recognisable, memorable and (unlike most) actually relevant by the link to the brand name (in twenty years, if I'm still around) we will still be saying 'do you remember Bite headstocks!)
With all that lined up, assuming that they are achieving the sort of sales levels their business plan projected it could be quite brave to change horses midstream. That said in time, a revised or alternative design (perhaps one that makes a 'fender-like' shape by taking the bite out of the bottom) may be used to extend sales.
All in all, although that headstock isn't to my taste, I wish them luck because any diversity in the market is a good thing.