Those abstracted away details matter a lot if you care about user experience. Just watch how painfully a task both Apple and Microsoft are enduring to try to improve their consumer OS.
If you sat down in front of my computer you probably wouldn't even know how to move the windows around.
And that's fine. We don't need to be running the same software as long as everything actually works.
Enjoy your DE however you like it :)
That's just fundamentally incompatible with Linux on desktops. Who's going to take charge and make decisions? And, how will they enforce? Will they make their desktop closed-source and take you to court if you try to fork it? That doesn't sound very pleasant.
People are gonna fork and do their own thing because that's what makes Linux Linux.
Sure, being closed-source prevents fragmentation from the start coz there's nothing to fork from, but it's not a requisite. There are many open source projects with less degree of fragmentation with major marketshare winners that the ecosystem can target for, and you can mostly recommend people to use without too much thinking, e.g. browsers and web servers.
There's dozens of forks of Chromium. They're so prolific that everyone is advocating a different one. Opera is better, no wait brave is better, no actually arc is the best. But no wait, edge is pretty good.
However you like/dislike any of the popular choices, the point is that other players in the ecosystem can mostly target the top choices and be reasonably sure that they cover the vast majority of user bases, so that upper layers could flourish. Except for Edge being the default on Windows, sane companies wouldn't care about minor players like Opera/Brave/Arc.
(You could also argue the degree of open source in these cases but that would be a different issue.)