>You just described all UI the frameworks, what replaces what, and what the limitations are! Microsoft also lays that out here

The problem is that all options lack some core fundamental expected feature. From that chart, WinForms lack High DPI awareness and customizable UI (tbh I'm not sure what customizable means here -- that custom controls/views are difficult or just skinning is difficult?), WPF also lacks High DPI and UWP lacks fallbacks (and a bunch of basic OS features like direct file access? I don't know why that's the case).

The differences between them aren't even trade-offs, so much as randomly incomplete. Granted, I haven't spent any time whatsoever trying workarounds -- maybe it's simple enough (WPF is clearly the least problematic, if DPI scaling can be worked around without much trouble). I've just been looking at the charts like that, and my ultimate answer is "???"

>You can complain about the current state of things but I don't think there's any argument that Microsoft is doing the wrong thing here

I think there is; Microsoft runs the .net ecosystem as its steward -- it intentionally creates, markets and governs pretty much every major framework and components that exists. For better or worse, the state of .net ecosystem is owned by Microsoft -- unlike say, rust, golang, python, c++, ruby, etc where the language maintainers are mostly divorced from the language ecosystem, and make no real say in the matter beyond broad recommendation of community-run frameworks (python is a little different, being batteries-included, but it's also well-known that stdlib is where libraries go to die; no one recommends python stdlib as best-in-class of anything). .NET is of course a non-closed ecosystem, and the community does contribute quite significantly, but nonetheless, if it's first-class it's almost always MS.

The current state of affairs is essentially a result of bad ownership; the high rate of churn in the javascript ecosystem can be blamed on the JS communities. The high rate of churn in the MS ecosystem can be blamed on MS. They've constructed a complex environment with unclear recommendations and continuous deprecation (fine, they're never actually deprecated because MS policy on backwards compatibility is second to none, but its "legacy"), a terribly confused naming convention and wide swath of overlapping technologies.

Don't get me wrong, MS does cool work, but they've made quite a mess, and it's quite clearly a result of constantly changing vision of how the .NET ecosystem should look like -- in combination with new projects seemingly forgetting MS's stance on backwards compatibility (nothing is ever just superseded; there must be an upgrade path or you will end up maintaining both forever [Unity has the same fundamental misunderstanding of their feature development]).

If there are going to be 4 UI frameworks, they should be competing on different models, APIs and mindsets (eg MVC vs MVVC vs MVU -- it's absurd that they're competing on core fundamental features instead). Although on the web-side of things, I think this is actually the case for .NET -- blazor vs MVC5 represent entirely different ways of approaching the problem. But AFAICT winforms vs UWP are really, from the programmer's perspective, the same thing. The underlying technology support changes (but in that case, you would ideally have the options be functionally complete).

Anyways as I said I've only been looking at it for the last year but that's my interpretation thus far -- the only way to understand the .NET ecosystem is to understand all the paths MS has taken, untaken, and re-routed. because their actual messaging and vision (as it connects to what they've implemented) is quite confused