Well, in that case your opinion obviously weighs way more than mine. Still, if I think of all the problems, flaws and shortcomings I've encountered in PlayStation software, I find it hard to dismiss my take.
On the other hand, a shitty algorithm is not mutually exclusive with a lack of data for said algorithm, so we might both be right.
Oh, no doubt it could be both. There's a lot of money in recommendation systems because they're so hard to get right, and 'incorrect' recommendations tend to stand out and annoy, whereas good recommendations feel natural and aren't necessarily even consciously noticed.
I tend to give devs the benefit of the doubt, having been there.
I know people like to complain about Sony here but this is just so wrong. The state of the OS on their systems is quite impressive. The PS4 OS beats the Xbox One in every area you mentioned and it was built with a fraction of the resources. Same with Vita.
I really like the PS4's UI. I don't jump around from game to game much [which I'm guessing is true of most people] so it works well. It has some issues, though, but it definitely gets the job done.
The PS4 has Sony's worst UI experience, at least once you have more than a few games or apps installed. I'll take the Vita's UI or the XMB over the PS4's mess any day. Well except for speed, but that's largely a function of hardware power.
I've said it before in firmware patch threads, but I think this is just a result of the 'launch' firmware. At launch, you know your userbase won't own many games, so features like folders and other library management tools simply aren't needed... and so those features [correctly, imo] get cut to keep the launch firmware lean and mean. This is important because you don't want feature creep -- a good launch UI should be relatively bare bones so they can focus on getting it absolutely solid... feature creep in a large rollout can spell death. Every little unnecessary feature added takes time, lots of QA, and ultimately creates chances for bugs and the last thing you want is for the launch firmware to start crashing on release to the public due to some odd feature you didn't even really need to include.
The problem is... once you don't include it, getting it back on the 'priority list' can be hellish. The designers/devs might really want to do it, but you've got dozens of other voices clammering for other features. Something utilitarian like 'Folders' that only helps a relatively small percentage of super users simply doesn't sound sexy so it constantly gets pushed down the list since 'well, it works good enough for now', because marketing [or whoever] wants something new and shiny to promote.
The PS4 is the best UI I've used in a console. The idea of prioritizing recent apps fits perfectly with the usage pattern of a console, when I'm usually playing about 3-5 games at a time.
And there's why. Same here. I have a pretty large PS4 library, but I play one game at a time so the library isn't an annoyance. Which means I'm one more reason that something like 'folders' gets pushed down the priority list, even though everyone knows it's something that eventually needs to get done.
[note -- backend utilities/tools also get this treatment at priority meetings, which is why I'm sure the people that update the store need to use abacuses, duct tape, and some rubber bands every week to get it right. Putting dev resources on giving them better tools just keeps getting put off longer and longer... i've seen it at so many companies it makes me sick [IT generally wants to give them better tools, but there's no time when you're told to work on xyz].
Anyway, end rant. Just some insight into the world of IT departments at most/all major companies for those interested.