One is an operating system maintained and run by a diffuse community of people, (albeit a flavor of linux with the explicit backing of at least one large company), whose primary goal is to create and maintain a functional operating system that can be used by many people for many different purposes. The other is a product whose primary goal is to convince investors that the company is on a growth trajectory that will continue into the next quarter by extracting value from that product's customers. We've now seen decades of data that suggest disparate results stemming from these priorities in a lot of contexts. I think viewed through that lens, the reason is obvious and was inevitable over time no matter what your threshold of "sucks" is, so long as it has something to do with the thing's function as an operating system

Fedora also sucks, if your yardstick for suck is "Sometimes after some updates some users experience errors"

Despite news to the contrary, the majority of Windows updates don't break anything for the majority of users. You only hear about the breakage

It turns out that most of this stuff is not difficult if you're just trying to make a good computer rather than make billions of dollars for your investors.