These days you do. We're at a transition these last 10 years or so as great as the one from crank-start to key-turn start cars, from regular steering to powered steering, and from manual to automatic transmission.
Even back a couple of decades ago I remember my 1980's Buick having shifting on the steering post toggles versus my 2000's Saturn having a standard shift stick.
I think the better parallel is aspect ratio, not resolution.
Across all cars. Not "across all controllable artifacts" or even "across all vehicles" (driving a bulldozer is way different from driving a car).
An optimal user interface for (e.g.) an accounting package is extremely unlikely to be the same as the interface for (e.g.) a video editor.
For that matter, imagine attempting to drive a car by picking the things you want to do off a menu with a mouse.
It would suck.
Big time.
"Ok, now open the Speed menu and scroll down to 'brake'. Now go to the 'slam' submenu item... whoops! Sorry, kitty!".
When you learn how to drive a car, you can expect the same standard across all cars. You don't relearn how to drive when you get into a new car. There's common UI and UX paradigms across all software and no one should have to learn your bespoke implementation. And I believe these sets should be part of the OS.
When you look at Spotify or Slack UI, there's nothing there that is better than their more native looking alternatives. I have utilities to populate a command panel with menu items, but it's essentially useless on these apps because everything is buried inside the app itself.