I enjoyed both write-ups, but I think there's a common misconception that resources are infinite because it's a big company.

"Notice the false dichotomy: “important” or not, as if only important bugs can or should be fixed. That’s a great way for smaller bugs to pile up and eventually become a mountain."

But... if every small bug is fixed, huge bugs can be introduced. Big teams writing software have many more hurdles to successfully release even a bugfix. Resources must be prioritized, and I'd rather a company be honest about the limitations than promise to fix every "thing" a developer finds that doesn't do exactly what they think it should.

In reality, what does a company do when they become so large that it would be a poor use of resources to have a developer respond and investigate every suggestion or small bug as if it was an important matter? How do the actually-important things get addressed?

I think the issue here is just a part of reality. You can encourage an environment like the Microsoft forums where you'll get a useless incoherent response to your post within minutes, the Google method where contacting them is a game unless you're somehow connecting with AdWords sales, or the Apple method where it's extremely easy to connect with a person by phone, in person, or electronically... but unimportant/non-priority requests aren't going to get any traction.

Personally, I'll always take the last option where contacting a human is not only possible, it is easily accomplished in a business day.

I have had excellent support from Apple when I have had pressing issues. But I also understand I'm a power user with an eye for QA - a rolling software release that met my high standards would be overkill for most people and be economically unfeasible for a even a gigantic for-profit company.

Suggesting big numbers like Google's quarterly revenue has any bearing on the organization's ability to address bugs in their myriad of releases tells me this can be boiled down as "man shakes fist at cloud" (pun intended)