Personally I cannot see what the fuss is all about.
F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of Motor racing inovation.
Innovation means risk.
Normally the risk is kept within a team as individual teams essentially "design" the package that becomes the race car.Occasionally something goes wrong. If it is an engine problem due to design normally only one team is affected but sometimes more as engines can be shared between several teams.
Bridgestone and Michelin are locked into a "tyre war" created by F1 rules. When you have this situation you create, as mentioned above, risk. This time the innovation has resulted in the wrong carcass design being selected for the race. (Unfortunately the risk of tyre inovation is higher as tyres are common amonst many teams)
Firestone, the American subsiduary of the Japanese Bridgestone company ,knew from their involvement in the Recent Indy 500 that track conditions had changed significantly and that a different tyre was needed. Obviously Michelin did not get the required feed back, for what-ever reason, but this lead to a unsuitable tyre carcass choice.
You could blame Michelin, but if you did then what you are saying is that F1 should have no risk. This could be accomplished by 1 engine supplier, 1 chassis supplier and 1 tyre supplier....
The new motto for F1 could then become..innovation No thanks
Will this problem again occur. Well once bitten twice shy as they say but yes technically it could occur on a regular basis with the current rules.
In reality, the final Fiasco was created by the FIA not having any way of overcoming the situation so that a race could go ahead with all teams competing, for at the end of the day people are paying to be entertained.
Strangely the worrying thing for me was that I did not fall asleep watching this race
