I did not say that two office suites "will" make users happier. I say that they have the potential to make users happier, which is quite a different thing. I then predicted that the divergence of AOO/LO will produce software to address different audiences.
It seems you are still struggling to understand the results from the spaghetti sauce experiment. The premise is the following: A product has certain properties that are decided by the manufacturer and not customizable by the consumer. Some consumers prefer one outcome, and others prefer another outcome.
The hypothesis is that several products, each taking the decisions to meet a different consumer preference cluster, can lead to greater total satisfaction than one product that tries to accommodate everybody.
The data gathered from the spaghetti sauce experiment, and a number of follow-up experiments, supports this hypothesis.
In particular, the following are totally inconsequential (ie. not part of the premise):
1. Whether the products have other unique features
2. Whether any given number of products can fulfill the desires of everyone
3. Whether the decisions are discrete or continuous
4. Whether the products are customizable in other regards
Don't forget that "customizability" itself is a decision that can attract or repel users.
That the premise applies to LO was shown by pointing to the bug about empty spreadsheet cells. That AOO can make the same decision does not invalidate the premise.
If you want to argue against applying the spaghetti sauce results to office software, you have to either say that Mr. Gladwell introduced additional premises that don't apply here, or that the spreadsheet cells behaviour is actually customizable, or that everybody prefers the same behaviour. (For the latter two cases, the counter-argument would be pointing to the next bug of that kind.)