And in either case, it doesn't matter in the eyes of Microsoft. Drive manufactures couldn't be trusted -- and honestly, the amount of "awesome" software coming from component manufactures is pretty small.
The drive manufactures software was making Microsoft look bad. The advantage of SED was small when we have AES-NI.
True, Microsoft can't be expected to make software that is good for the sake of being good. Maybe they'll consider now Microsoft looks bad on their own - OPAL2.0 on modern drives is quite a different beast than what they pulled out of.
Note that the advantage is still very large - easily 20% and an associated hit to battery life, depending on the specific cipher mode and access pattern. Without AES-NI it just wouldn't be practical to even consider AES-based FDE.
The drive manufactures software was making Microsoft look bad. The advantage of SED was small when we have AES-NI.