But why would MS go through all that evolution only to end up back at mobile again, which they failed at?
Because the entire end goal of windows 10 has always been an adaptable shell overlaying a single OS? The end goal isn't 'phones', it's 'anything'. It's a long game revolving around ubiqitious computing. 'Small' is simply one of the more challenging end goals because windows ten is a 'big scree' OS traditionally. The same interface rules will apply if it's windows on your refridgerator, or in your car, or whatever.
There are other challenges, voice only, no screen, VR. Microsoft has spoken openly about all of this for a long time.
Windows phone, as it was (is?), was never a part of that plan at all. That was balmers play. In the end, I believe it was used more as a testbed of ideas to later intergrate into windows core. In the last days of updates, it seemed very much like that.
They've been working on windows core for a VERY long time, in developer terms. Literally more man hours than any historical commercial project. More effort and time has gone into that than windows 10 itself, or edge/explorer, or any prior windows. They've been working on it since early days of windows 10, more or less, from what I can tell. It's been called 'one core', 'cshell' now 'windows core os'. It was the stated reason they halted windows mobile development earlier on.
What do you think that's all for?
And when they say 'no screen, 3d etc', and 'one windows' what do you think they mean? To me, it's all been very clear communication about the end aim of the semi herculean task of a cross platform, fully adaptable OS running on everything.
I'm struggling to think why they would bother creating windows core OS at all, windows on arm, all of the current history, if it weren't for the end aim of being able to run on anything.
I mean it might not be a phone. Maybe by the time it's all perfect, there won't be any smartphones. Just voice modules, or AR glasses or something. Maybe phones will all be folding tablets by then. Probably their goal has adapted somewhat to be more lightweight and cloud focused.
The point isn't 'smartphone', which arguably will die or evolve someday soon, it's just 'anything', but as I said, one of MSFTs key challenges is 'style of interface' and 'scale', and small touch interfaces are a part of that. Hence, the smart move is to play at it peicemeal, using your strength to very gradually scale and bring development and polish. Hence folding all touch 'laptop's (or whatever they should really be called).
It's like you have something, like say, a PC. And then you have a laptop. And then you have a hybrid. And then you have one of whatever the heck those are. And then a slightly smaller one. And after years of ****** whinging, hits and misses, there you are, small and touch. VR seems to be being handled fairly proactively. Voice has a ways to come, but I think we are in for some big updates there.
MSFT has some big legs to rest on, and invest in. Cloud computing and gaming are both the majority of the companies profits. The logical, but difficult (and risky) goal of creating a truely next gen OS is an expansion effort. If they can create the one, truely flexible, interoperable OS before ubiqitious computing hits, and it's successful, the rest will look like they are still pimping ms dos.
Sure, it's great to be successful at pcs, or phones, or vr or iot or some subcomponent. But if there is computing EVERYWHERE, then it's going to annoy the living crap out of consumers because it won't play together, nor share software or hardware ecosystem, nor be familiar across devices. Such a future either requires all the big players co-operate (ie the opposite of now), share protocols, software, everything in a way that actually works in the opposite way that capitalism usually works, or that there is 'one big winner' of the tech game.
That's the point. MS wants one OS to rule them all. That's biscuits well big enough to bet one, long term commercial profit and power well beyond what smartphones ever delivered.