I agree. I know I've certainly been offended by inanimate or even virtual objects. Closed source libraries with bugs or convoluted APIs are some of the most offensive things I've ever encountered.
But either the system was buggy (or the product was faulty or cheaply made, like a hammer that breaks on its first use), or the user simply used it incorrectly. Both can be phrased in terms of expectations. In the first, the developers failed to meet the expectations of the system (either explicitly set through marketing or usage manuals, or implicitly through interface design). In the second, the user ignored design cues and fabricated incorrect expectations, which the system then did not meet. I will say only the first case deserves apologetic tone, while most replies to the link are arguing that the second case deserves apologetic tone.
Why a system is responsible, or should show sympathy, for a user's ignorance of design cues is beyond me. I argue that most users prefer to only get the task done, and care more about whether the error messaging includes corrective advice than any apology. In fact, injecting apologetic, sympathetic emotion into an objective transaction only seeks to call attention to the user's ignorance and errant fabrication of expectations. Now that's offensive.