Careful with that. Everything is relative. When your user base is 2 billion users, a small subset of users is still a large number. 0.01% of 2B is 200,000.

With great power comes great responsibility. Or at least, it should.

It's chilling to think about. Back when Windows updates were particularly obnoxious, I went to work and had a forced update from 9 to 10:30 despite setting up acceptable update times and shutting down the laptop regularly.

An hour and a half of lost productivity because of poor UX! If everyone else who uses Windows for work experiences a similar time loss, it's costing humanity billions. Plus all the stories of updates prior to important meetings and presentations.

Microsoft intentionally monopolised work computing and now the whims they use to extract more revenue from paying customers have absurd negative externalities.

My company thankfully supports Windows and Mac. The PowerPoint & meeting types generally use Windows. All us devs use Macs. It’s bad enough we have to suffer the horrible UX of Teams. I could not imagine having to deal with Windows on a daily basis, although Linux Subsystem for Windows is pretty cool—-like a sip of cool water on a desert island!

I'm not saying it shouldn't be fixed, I'm saying it shouldn't be fixed before other more impactful / easy to fix bugs.

It's just a matter of prioritization, it doesn't mean it will be swept under the rug and left there to rot, unlike what the article claims.

How is that different from a works where 1000 software companies have merely 2m customers, and each one doesn't fix problems that affect only 2000 users?

There's a lot to talk about with scale, but I'm not sure I believe smaller companies fix 100% of bugs, or that we should have different expectations for larger companies.