I take back “generally terrible”. How about “often spotty and rarely held accountable in practice”?

It’s not that governments literally cannot provide good services — it’s that when government appoints itself as a monopolist, outcomes and accountability become effectively disconnected, unless the service is so high-stakes and the quality is so abysmal that it rises to “vote the bastards out” territory.

Agreed that the government isn't inherently bad at providing services, but I do think it's important to define how we measure "bad." For example, does "bad" mean the UX is bad? If so, then government isn't inherently bad at it (though can be, see next paragraph). If we define "bad" as "less economical (i.e. more expensive/wasteful of resources) then it does have a general tendency toward bad.

It largely comes down to who is running the thing, and do they care? With private sector, they are forced to care because otherwise it will affect revenue and brand value, which will get the leader fired. The consumer is empowered with ability to spend their $ elsewhere, which rewards the better service and punishes the worse (note that this is becoming much less true in the age of giant corps, especially big tech). With government services, (particularly in monopolistic situations like the DMV), the consumer is largely powerless. They have no choice but to use the system given, and if they aren't happy they can complain but that complaint won't have any teeth (unless they happen to be politically connected of course).

tldr: I most agree, but it depends on how you define "bad"