I don't understand either of those sentances.
Umm, let me try to rephrase...
Canonical Ltd, Ubuntu's parent company, develops and maintains the OS. It employs hired and paid programmers for that job. Since no one wants a bottomless pit for money as a company, they have to generate income. Canonical does this via paid for support services for businesses and users alike.
If you don't want troubleshoot problems with the OS yourself or you need help getting started, you can sign up for preferential support (via telephone or e-mail or the like).
So if Canonical would really strive to deliver a mind-reading, all compatible, all desires fulfilling, in short a perfect operating system, it would basically drive itself into bankruptcy since no one would need that paid support.
Instead of focusing on perfect user friendliness, the developers focus on expanding the OS's core capabilities, iron out bugs and do whatever else developers do.
Microsoft, or Apple, on the other hand generate a significant amount of income from the operating system itself (there's no free versions of Windows and OSX) and thus don't have to rely on income from paid support.
Hence, Windows' and OSX' (perceived) user-friendliness through extensive use of GUIs and step-by-step dialogues.
To clarify statement number two, as long as there are no paid programmers involved, Linux is nothing but a spare time project free for everyone to download, use, expand and develop.
Just like freeware add-ons for MSFS, the developers of the operating system basically couldn't care less if their creation is used by 10 or 10 million people as they don't intend to make money with it anyways.
Hope that helps.