Everyone needs a dose of reality sometimes. And arguments such as these can bring about new ideas and changed perspectives.
These so called "Apple Fans" often seem to have the perspective that Apple's ways are inherently better. It's good to see people showing why it's not better, it's just different.
Certainly there is value in having alternative view points and other sources available, and folks who are critical consumers of information will seek them out. And I found the detail and data sources in the rant very persuasive that Microsoft's actions were no more nor less 'good' than Apple's efforts at dumping late breaking fixes into the market.
I read a great exposition on Gamasutra once which very crisply derided game companies for 'squeezing' a couple more months of development time by putting out what was beta quality at best CD's with games on them during the 'shopping rush' and having a patch available basically Christmas day when most of those sales would be unwrapped and installed. High speed internet is a curse for folks who want to play 'old' games from that period, since the 'real' game, the one that was the best build, can no longer be downloaded as a patch from the manufacturer. But it didn't need to call out specific manufacturers, just example games.
So I find calling out MG Seigler to be unnecessary, as the exemplar author of a poorly articulated piece sure, but as part of the argument on whether or not big after ship patches are 'good' or 'bad', well it doesn't add value for me. I know, I'm too sensitized to this stuff and should just ignore and move on.
These so called "Apple Fans" often seem to have the perspective that Apple's ways are inherently better. It's good to see people showing why it's not better, it's just different.