It's a fair cop. It was only a blog post, dashed off on the basis of a FB comment that grew overlong. :-)
I do not have a coherent thesis that I was expounding; it was merely a passing thought.
I find it interesting, though, how the computer market has developed in my lifetime -- I first touched a computer keyboard in about 1981 and owned my own a year later.
In the early 1980s there were dozens of different manufacturers of almost-totally different and incompatible systems, and it was quite normal for the larger developed countries to have one or more indigenous computer makers, often with their own architectures. Most used one of a small number of CPUs, yes, and those CPUs were mostly American, yes, but I knew of English, Welsh, French, Spanish, German, Norwegian, and Swedish makes of computer, to pick the first few to come to mind. I'm sure there were many more.
Now I live in the former Communist Bloc, I've also learned of hordes of Sinclair clones and other copies of Western home computers that thrived over here, often after they were dead and gone from their homelands. I covet a Didaktik Kompakt. :-)
By the 1990s things were starting to consolidate but there was still a lot of variety, and major innovations came from other countries -- as other commenters note, from Denmark, from a Brit at CERN, from a Swedish-speaking Finn, etc. As I said in the piece, I used a Finnish cellphone with a British OS, and so on.
But when the world market consolidated down to a handful of companies and technologies, the winners were pretty much all American. The European software luminaries relocated their and often became American.
And yes, I think the overall design ethos has changed as a result, and I find that interesting. I have rarely seen it discussed. I often see people bemoaning modern bloatware, but I rarely see analysis of why and how it happened. This was my 2¢ worth on the subject.