Yes! -- because they at least have an incentive to make it work with more than one operating system. Even if it's not great, at least it'll be compatible.
It's insane that there still isn't a standard file system. They all do 99% the same thing now. Making them incompatible is just a pissing contest, and the users lose.
They most certainly don’t do 99% the same thing, especially now. We’re seeing an advent of new CoW filesystems (ReFS, APFS) alongside the ones that have been around for a while (ZFS, BTRFS). These all differ on multiple axes: handling RAID/volume management at the FS layer (which all do significantly differently), inherent/conventional filename behavior (e.g. 2 byte characters vs single byte, Unicode normalization), direct support of various POSIX filesystem features, bitrot prevention. Plus all the other common filesystems still in use from the last few decades (ext4, xfs, ntfs).
That’s not even including facts of how operating systems use filesystems that aren’t technically enforced in the filesystems itself (e.g. case on Windows). There is a lot more going on here than a pissing contest at user’s expense. In fact, if e.g. Windows threw in the towel and started using UTF-8 file names with case sensitivity tomorrow, the users would be the first to yell that half their software no longer works!
It's insane that there still isn't a standard file system. They all do 99% the same thing now. Making them incompatible is just a pissing contest, and the users lose.