That's a very charitable reading. In my reading, the dismissive tone of the "security" arguments implies there's something obvious that MS should have done better specifically security-wise. If there's no such better implementation, then security has nothing to do with the argument, and they should stop talking about it. If they wanted to make a more nuanced argument about how there's no way to make a secure implementation that provides the smooth UX people will actually use, I would respect that a bit more, but I'm not seeing either that particular claim or the evidence to back it up in the mainstream commentary.