On one side, I'm thankful that slimmer versions of platforms (seemingly like this Android Oreo) emerge to help bring in "entry-level" or even lower-powered devices to leverage modern-day (digital) benefits. I believe this helps avoid needing to constantly buy ever-newer devices, because the older devices can still be used effectively, for longer. I saw this with MS Windows: it used to be absolutely necessary to have a pretty beefy machine to run the minimalist of MS Windows Vista. But recently, can now run Windows 7 or 10 on more modest machines...leading to a bit more longevity of machine usage, savings on hardware purchase costs, and hey, yes, a tiny less negative impact on the environment (by reducing constant new "junk" tossed into junk yards, etc.).
...But on the other side, I wonder why didn't these platform producers - Google and Microsoft alike - create these slimmer platforms to begin with? The benefits of a slimmer platforms are nothing new, and don't seem like some weird set of concepts. That is, i don't think its unfair of me to ask these Googles and Microsofts of the world: why didn't they think of this sooner, why don't they always think of this sooner? A slimmer, more optimized platform that allows for broader use among that many more devices...duh! Then, I wonder, well, there's got to be some incentive for why these companies fill some versions of their platforms with ungodly amounts of bloat, right? Is it some shady alignment with other partners, where ideal performance for consumers is only a secondary goal (to say, the higher goals of benefiting a partner)? Is it some sort of dark, planned obsolescence, to get people to buy a new device every couple of years? Is it simple incompetence of key leaders of relevant platforms, who could common sense into the near-future? Or, some tangled combination of all of the above?
I think the answer lies somewhere above my pay-grade.
> ...But on the other side, I wonder why didn't these platform producers - Google and Microsoft alike - create these slimmer platforms to begin with?
They did, mobile OSes started about ten years ago for devices whose power was but a fraction of what we have today. Stuff just got added over time. One could argue iOS had the more efficient approach in that their OS and apps were made in a native language instead of on the JVM (and it took about five years for Android to catch up in terms of performance and UX), but the main thing is that Android used to be slimmer.
At one point you have to either strip out 90% of the features that were added over time, or start from scratch. It's an example of feature creep, bloat, bitrot, all that stuff.
On one side, I'm thankful that slimmer versions of platforms (seemingly like this Android Oreo) emerge to help bring in "entry-level" or even lower-powered devices to leverage modern-day (digital) benefits. I believe this helps avoid needing to constantly buy ever-newer devices, because the older devices can still be used effectively, for longer. I saw this with MS Windows: it used to be absolutely necessary to have a pretty beefy machine to run the minimalist of MS Windows Vista. But recently, can now run Windows 7 or 10 on more modest machines...leading to a bit more longevity of machine usage, savings on hardware purchase costs, and hey, yes, a tiny less negative impact on the environment (by reducing constant new "junk" tossed into junk yards, etc.).
...But on the other side, I wonder why didn't these platform producers - Google and Microsoft alike - create these slimmer platforms to begin with? The benefits of a slimmer platforms are nothing new, and don't seem like some weird set of concepts. That is, i don't think its unfair of me to ask these Googles and Microsofts of the world: why didn't they think of this sooner, why don't they always think of this sooner? A slimmer, more optimized platform that allows for broader use among that many more devices...duh! Then, I wonder, well, there's got to be some incentive for why these companies fill some versions of their platforms with ungodly amounts of bloat, right? Is it some shady alignment with other partners, where ideal performance for consumers is only a secondary goal (to say, the higher goals of benefiting a partner)? Is it some sort of dark, planned obsolescence, to get people to buy a new device every couple of years? Is it simple incompetence of key leaders of relevant platforms, who could common sense into the near-future? Or, some tangled combination of all of the above?
I think the answer lies somewhere above my pay-grade.