If it is, there's always room for judgments at the institutional level and responsibilities! Anyone could imagine the simple idea of wasting memory resources with the intention of selling devices with more capacity. For any kind of update, both software or hardware.
The steps to establish if the memory consumption is necessary or not comes very, very easy. For instance, in a house, at night, there are rooms without light. As the user might go to any room, there are three options.
First, to turn on all the lights in any room, designing a non intelligent system that wastes energy. The second option is all dark and leaving the user freedom to turn on lights, with a simple question: do you want to turn on this light and consume memory? At last, probably the most reasonable, an automatic system that only turns on specific functionality when it's necessary. An automatic system that works detecting the movement of the user.
Well, we can ensure that there are popular operating systems (and it's not an accusation, but who create them win a lot with any upgrade) that prefer the first option, forcing users to have very important areas of memory occupied with programs or services that aren't used most of the time.
This is not a mere observation, it's a technical reality. If you code software that checks what kind of software is needed or not, you will discover this lamentable waste in millions of computers. The creators of the operating systems could code those tools to optimize memory usage in real-time after each booting, or provide different configurations after a simple wizard. What then? Are they smart? Sorry, but we cannot believe that a team of engineers would forget this. In mobile devices, even more.
Some Android versions are a scandal in this regard. Perhaps it's time to require or to conceive different operating systems, or why not to demand more rationality. We think this should be regulated by law as it produces too many inconveniences in the user side and too much toxic electronic waste.