This ^ is spot on. While the general 'abstraction' argument is spot on, MS is in fact poorly placed to be the 'OS' that becomes that abstraction. In fact, argua

This ^ is spot on. While the general 'abstraction' argument is spot on, MS is in fact poorly placed to be the 'OS' that becomes that abstraction. In fact, arguably it doesn't even need to be an 'OS' level concept. An example is google docs or WhatsApp. I can work on documents seamlessly across different actual 'OS' because the application abstracts that away - and it is sufficient. If an OS were to abstract all of this, it would also involve numerous compromises, notably on the tightly integrated end-end experience (hardware to UX), which is Apple's entire strategy against the likes of Microsoft. So no MS is not the best situated to be that 'OS'. 1. It is unclear if such an OS (with the benefits and trade-offs) will be preferred to a world where cross-OS applications can abstract away the OS. 2. Someone like Google (minus their execution woes that seem to get worse in recent years) is better positioned to abstract away the complexities for a regular consumer.