Considering the circumstances, I think it went alright.
First of all, AMD is tiny compared to Intel. They simply do not have the same resources to coordinate a huge launch of a new architecture. They also couldn't afford to wait any longer. AMD was a sinking ship, and this was their last chance at rescue.
Motherboard makers might have remembered Bulldozer, and not expected Ryzen to be so successful. I remember leaked benchmarks from ES's showing very low clock speeds, so it wasn't until recently that AMD finalized the much higher clock speeds. If you're a motherboard maker, and you receive a Kaby Lake sample at 4.x GHz and a Ryzen sample at 2.3 GHz, which are you going to produce the most motherboards for?
The bricked C6H's and such are entirely the fault of motherboard makers. It seems especially Asus really messed up this launch.
Regarding OS support (Windows in particular), as the story unfolds, it doesn't seem to be as simple as "Windows task scheduler is dumb and treating the cores wrong". It's more complex than that. For example, AMD confirmed that the scheduler is treating SMT cores properly, so much of the performance delta with SMT on probably comes from the static partitioning in Ryzen. So it isn't really about "fixing" Windows. "Optimizing" Windows for a new architecture is a more accurate description.
Then you have the "Linux to the rescue!" faction, but it's hard to draw any conclusions when comparing one OS to another, with completely different kernels, drivers, API's etc.
Also, this is an entirely new chipset, platform and architecture. Intel has only been refining for the past 5+ years, which makes things a lot easier.
Could the launch have gone smoother? Definitely. But I think AMD did a decent job under the circumstances.