I think it’s a matter of competition / market segmentation. People choose Microsoft partially for the reason it doesn’t lock down things as much in their ecosystem as much as Apple does.
If they want to compete with Apple using Apple’s strategy, they may face a losing battle.
I believed that too until I used a Mac for my daily driver. The experience of developing on a machine with native Bash, a relatively mature package handler, and air-tight device integration was MUCH better than Microsoft’s frequently annoying cruft, unexplained crashes, and horrible program management (we won’t call them “packages”, as they tend to leak all over the system with mixed success “uninstalling” them).
> a relatively mature package handler
What package handler ? Installing things on macOS is still a mixed bag of disk images with the app to move yourself, or .pkg files or the App Store.
The thing is so broken that brew is the first thing I install on a new Mac.
> What package handler ?
they're probably referring to homebrew. which quite honestly, makes MacOS barely bearable. The terminology sucks and the ruby language doesn't help. MacOS without homebrew is unbearable.
With downside of company that will toss backwards compatibility out the second someone at Cupertino gets mad.
Microsoft backwards compatibility got them massive market share but also backed them into a corner. Package Managers only work if there is some constrants but I came across software that was dropping .ini files into C:\Windows\System32 in 2017.
Developers are not the only ones using windows. Software installation UX is much better and controlled in a windows environment than a unix environment.
> Software installation UX is much better and controlled in a windows environment than a unix environment
unix: pkg-add, apt, rpm etc. Windows: intallshield, Teams' "stealth, backdoor like" installer, Office's "annoying" installer, etc. Basically: every program on Windows has its own installer.