Because so much is software-based now, my counter would be that most companies that would have died because they failed to get their software operation in order have already done so.
And I'd also question the "killing it at software" statement: remember that Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone, you've got to go to the product iteration before to make the dates line up) was catastrophically hamstrung by an inability to ship anything decent. I had a Windows Mobile 5 device myself, and it was rubbish. They were so focused on making it so you could run a spreadsheet on your phone that they forgot the thing had to be usable. The OS wasn't actually much good until post 6.5, well after the iPhone launch, and they never got to release the iteration that would have brought it up to scratch. They realised very late that they needed to focus on consumers, not businesses, because they could see that businesses would and did buy consumer devices if they were good enough, but the reverse would almost never happen. Once the iPhone was released and they realised how wrong they'd been they made a hard pivot to get Metro out, but they were starting from a very long way behind.
More evidence against "killing it at software": this was the Windows Longhorn/Vista era. We all know how that went. Microsoft managed to survive for a long time on desktop and office suite monopoly momentum without being able to stick the landing on very many releases at all, compared to how much activity was going on. Even though the launches would go OK they'd often get killed later by internal politics. That was actually the era that got me to swear off the Windows ecosystem: you'd learn enough of an exciting new product to be useful, only for it to get sidelined with no updates a couple of months later. It was just exhausting. Half of me thinks that MS was lucky to survive Ballmer at all.
Microsoft now is successful because of cloud and working with cooperations. Not because they made the best OS. Their Microsoft Mobile wasn't very impressive. And their second attempt was ok, but very late.
The were gifted a monopoly by IBM so they constant fuckups that cost them many millions or billions of $ couldn't kill them off like it could other companies.
Taking full advantage of a monopoly isn't the same as being actually good. The beat their office competitors by leveraging their OS monopoly with very cheap bundling deals. They spun the OS monopoly into a 3D interface near-monopoly that made games only work on their platform. The list goes on.
What? Blue screens of death. Malware. ctrl shift del being known by lay people. People being able to use the excuse that their Windows computer is randomly updating as a reason they cannot do the work they want to do. Not being able to create/edit/sign pdfs without downloading sketchy 3rd party programs.
Amount of time spent being tech support for family members when they were all using Windows computers was magnitudes more than the amount of time spent being tech support for family members after they switched to MacBook Airs (10+ years ago).
I am not saying Microsoft is bad at software, but certainly would not claim they kill it at consumer facing OS.