>You can choose to label that neglectful and insulting, but I doubt it will overcome the incentives and market forces that are inexorably pushing in a different

>You can choose to label that neglectful and insulting, but I doubt it will overcome the incentives and market forces that are inexorably pushing in a different direction. I don't think it's just about incentives and market forces. There is an inevitable trade-off between implementing the features that people want and working on ever deeper platform integration. This trade-off exists and will always exist irrespective of financial considerations. Some people (not you) make it sound as if putting more work into platform integration is somehow a more noble goal than building other features, and if it wasn't for those greedy, cost cutting capitalists the natural steady state of all software would be some sort of "native" ideal. I disagree with that. As a user I don't want developers to put time into every single thing that platform providers invent in order to make their own platform more unique, however useless or even detrimental that differentiation may be for me. Platform providers don't want to be replaceable pipes because that would hurt their margins. In many cases one size really does fit all my needs when it comes to infrastructure. In a minority of cases I do need really deep platform integration. Both goals have their legitimate place in software engineering even before considering any profit motives and financial constraints.