It looks from where I&#x27;m standing as if Apple has a methodology for getting rid of legacy cruft while keeping the important bits, viz:<p>1. Pick a product. (Pages, for example, or Logic Pro. Or the entire platform -- OSX.)<p>2. Create a new version with significant feature regressions (e.g. Pages 5, iOS in the early years, Logic Pro X).<p>3. Keep an eye on what features the customers are screaming about losing, and re-implement them (but not the bits nobody cares about).<p>4. Screams subside, product reaches parity again -- but is a lot less crufty, easier to maintain on new platforms.<p>Google <i>hasn&#x27;t</i> mastered this art, and they&#x27;re unsure what their operating strategy is. First there was Chrome the browser, then ChromeOS (a thin client platform), and Android because they needed a phone OS, then running Android apps on ChromeOS, then this idea of giving ChromeOS touch support so it could replace Android, then the flagship touch-ChromeOS platform (the Pixel-C) has to ship before the OS is ready and it all falls apart. With much wheel-spinning, Google ends up falling behind an in-some-ways-inferior Apple competitor because they don&#x27;t focus on iterative design.<p>(Am I barking up the wrong tree here? TL:DR is the Pixel-C hardware looks gorgeous but the software is clearly a case of &quot;dammit, we have to ship <i>now</i>, what OS can we dump on it?&quot; rather than any strategic planning.)