This kinda misses my point. By having poor defaults in the past, marketing claims at-odds with reality, and being repeatedly found to have bugs that reduce consistency, the result is that customer have no reason to trust current claims.

They may have fixed everything, but the only way to know that is to use it and see (because the issue was trusting marketing/docs/promises), and why should people put that time in when they've repeatedly got it wrong, especially when there are options that are just better now.

Right, I was curious if you put even more time in :)

I see lots of comments from people insisting it's fixed now but it's hard to validate what features they're using and what reliability/durability they're expecting.