I agree - great post. Good questions.
Also re above - yes, more so than the VW scandal where there is quite a lot of choice in the car market, there realistically isn't a lot of choice in the cpu fab market if Intel and AMD decided it was all too hard. One thing about the VW scandal - it was a deliberate and wilful act to specifically advantage the company by fudging code to comply with emissions figures while still retaining performance - my belief is that the chip industry had no idea 20 years ago this was a thing, probably had no idea 2 years ago - they have been blindsided by a 'wtf' discovery by some pretty clued up propeller-heads.
I'm writing this on a little thin single config windows thing made by HP - no bios updates for it yet and frankly I'm not fussed. When and if they come, it will be slower, and frankly I'm not fussed - because the 5% it robs me of is part of the 50++% that sits idle while I browse and play youtube videos in the background. Does the machine live up to my expectations? yes, and still will I imagine - was it falsely advertised? probably not, certainly not 'with wilful intent' - an after 30-something years in IT (EDP back in the day) I'm certainly jaded I'd think.
BUT - the fact most people won't notice the problem, won't notice the slowdown with the fix, and may never have been compromised by an exploit of either vulnerability (yet to be well defined I think) - does that mean the manufacturers shouldn't be accountable? I think it could be argued they are being accountable already - time will tell.
There might be a small number of cases where claims were made about performance metrics that will now fall short of the bar - and those customers might see some compensation - I reckon the rest of us will apply the patches and be happy we are now 'safe' whatever that means, not notice our youtube running any slower and move on to the next Nick Cave video ...
Still ... good questions. If nothing else, its interesting and the whole thing just a little amusing