Microsoft predated the Apple ][ too, but it's moot either way. Was MS-DOS so buggy and so profoundly influential that it dramatically lowered Apple's standards - and everyone else's - over the course of the two and a half years between the launch of the IBM PC and the launch of the Macintosh?
Macintosh and Amiga, without any sort of memory protection, could easily be made to crash by bugs in any program. But crashing was the exception, and an embarrassment to be fixed as quickly as possible.
Windows, instead, absolutely routinely crashed every day, or even several times a day. A few people managed to keep it up for days between crashes. It would crash even when you weren't using it.
I had an Apple A/UX system that stayed up for months at a stretch. That was simply normal for Unix, and later Linux. Even in the mid '90s it was expected that a Linux system would be rebooted only after you deliberately shut it down to upgrade to a new release or install new gadgets. (This was before there was USB.)
Microsoft ended up redefining crashing to mean, not just needing to reboot, but failing to reboot so you would need to re-install the OS, because something got corrupted on disk. It was totally normal and expected to need to reinstall Windows every few weeks or, sometimes, months, and everyone got used to that.
Look up "monopoly". Users are not the customer. Equipment had, as it still does, MS pre-installed. You could not buy a system without, and contracts were written such that vendors could not afford to offer an alternative.
Microsoft worked fine for the actual customers, the system integrators, because all it needed to do was install and register. Once the system was delivered to their customer, software failures were Somebody Else's Problem, and did not affect the actual customer.
Economically speaking, software failure costs were exported to the hapless users, who were not sophisticated enough to blame anybody, and not in a position to demand satisfaction from anybody.
