Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it were we'd all destroy our computers, never write anything down, and simply accept the collapse of society. No, this is the same sort of defeatism that prevents us from making progress on security. We could engineer usable systems where actual security is a priority, and not just security theater. We don't because nobody in a position to change anything actually gives a shit.
> We could engineer usable systems where actual security is a priority, Security is a priority. But it's not the only priority. It would be difficult engineering even if it was the only priority, but given that there's little point to security for a system you never deploy, it's not likely to ever completely monopolize focus, either for users or implementers.
Ultimately though, they know that no matter how many times their failure to invest in security results in their customer's data being compromised or destroyed they'll keep making money.
Their customers are corporations who have insurance to cover their expenses when Microsoft's failure to make security a priority inevitably leads to a breech and those corporations are able to avoid all accountability for their decision to use Microsoft products no matter who else gets hurt as a result.
Dealing with yet another security issue caused by Microsoft is just another cost of doing business. It's still cheaper and/or easier for the corporations to keep MS and deal with the endless vulnerability/patch cycle than it is to move to something else and pay people who know what they're doing to manage those new systems so nothing changes.