I can't disagree with you. But regarding backwards compatibility, the simpler the standard, the easer it is to write an implementation, the more practical it is to simply start fresh every iteration. Considering how cheap and disposable hardware is becoming these days, the more obvious is the false economy of flexibility in the design.
I don't do much traditional driver development (mostly USB related, at least when it comes to hardware). I know enough that dealing with the ARM ecosystem can be much more of a headache than in the PC world, for two reasons: diversity and more opaque specs. (Even if the PC stuff is proprietary, there's enough publicly leaked info to at least get started.) But ARM features are also often much simpler and straight-forward. If the documentation were always and completely freely available[1], then I think many developers would prefer dealing with ARM platforms than with PCs. You may be writing more drivers, but development would be more efficient and reliable and you could move on without having as much of a maintenance and bug-fix burden. It can be a worthwhile trade-off, and fits better with the open source model.
[1] I spent months trying to sign an NDA and gain access to NXP's iMX53 Security Reference Manual. After repeated back-and-forth with two NXP resellers, Mouser and Digi-Key, I just gave up.[2] I've heard of lone developers getting access to the manual, but they must be more familiar with the process than I am. Now I'm pivoting and have decided to use seL4 on PC hardware rather than bother with the TrustZone and the iMX53 crypto hardware, even though the ARM route would have been easier but for the documentation issue.
[2] I think it's NXP that kept dropping the ball, but I'm really not sure.