I will bet there are many people within M$ who disagree with the "Always On" requirement, and this is ammunition for their counter-argument. If it wasn't for this twitter-gaff, you might see Always-On, but because it happened, we will probably see this requirement removed.
In an ideal world, this would happen. Sadly, the world we live in is far from ideal, and, if past history with Microsoft is anything to go by, their stance will be a "my way or the highway" one. I have no doubt that there are indeed people within Microsoft who disagree with "always on", but I have serious doubts as to whether their counter-argument will be listened to, or even heard.
If one is looking for an example, the Metro interface (or whatever its official name is) in Windows 8 is a perfectly good one. User feedback regarding Metro was generally negative; Microsoft had a "suck it up" attitude and rammed it down our throats anyway, and one need only see how Windows 8 is shunned in these parts to see how that turned out. (Personal opinion: Microsoft really missed the boat with the Metro interface. They had a really nice idea, but the execution of said idea leaves a lot to be desired.)
The thing is: users are becoming more aware and more vocal regarding what they perceive as abuse of their freedoms, and alternatives to Microsoft and their products are far more viable to those who relied on the Microsoft ecosystem than they were in times gone by -- so Microsoft users, when faced with that "my way or the highway" stance, are now far more likely to take the latter where they would have previously taken the former. If anything, Microsoft seems to be making the same mistakes as the previous "Evil Empire" (IBM): unable and/or unwilling to react to shifts in the market until it becomes too late. They won't disappear entirely, but if they continue down the path they seem to be taking, they could well be a niche option in the not too distant future.