At least you have a gmail app. I'm on windows phone, aka the platform that google shuns completely and utterly (to the point of taking apps out of the market when they buy a company that has a windows phone app). I used to do everything in google's ecosystem because they were OS agnostic, but now they just want to lock me into android and chromebook. Thanks but no thanks. Microsoft has been forced to get it, their stuff works great on all platforms.
There is the KNX standard, but it's to home automation what the USB standard is to PC expandability. Yes, there's a standard, but saying that you're going to build a KNX installation is like saying you're going to build a USB installation. It can do anything, but anything you want it to do requires specific software, and the software in the KNX ecosystem is either a proprietary lock-in or just plain horrible.
This happens conversely as well, where the person would remember a rosy version of events in which they themselves acted quite badly in actuality. Just because a person believes they did not do something bad doesn't mean they didn't. It has led me to automatically put into doubt stories people tell me that I did not witness myself.
What is your title? I'm guessing it's developer or engineer. If you view yourself as such, others also view you as such, and you won't be considered for management roles, because you're not a manager. I've chosen this for myself deliberately, and i accept that the cost is that i have to define my role more narrowly. I don't think how long you are at a company matters that much, or even should matter much. As the old saying goes: what have you done for me lately?
I've seen this transition happen myself, where the company grew, got cut up into a bunch of departments, all of which got a manager, mostly external hires. I feel like this way of organizing companies (departments, hierarchical, middle management, etc) is an anti-pattern. Everybody does it because everybody does it, but every dividing line you add reduces efficiency, and I've seen firsthand how damaging middle management is to the agility at the individual level. I don't know what the antidote to this anti-pattern is, but i feel like company structure is a territory ripe for innovation.
I've done the big rewrite a few times, and what I've learned from it is that a system so "bad" that it is in need of a rewrite does not have a caretaker who understands it well enough to provide perfect documentation of choices made and reasoning behind them. In fact, a system that bad typically has plenty of choices which were made for no good reason at all. So, you never go into the big rewrite with perfect documentation or good tests, because if you had those you wouldn't need a big rewrite.
Why wouldn't SpaceX be capable of doing life support systems? What's so magically complicated about those compared to the rockets themselves? You have to be aware of the shifting goal posts scenario here. At every stop people said SpaceX wasn't going to be able to do what they were going to do, because there was some kind of magic fairy dust that only government space organizations have. And each time that they achieve a milestone, people just keep shifting the goalposts. They've already done things NASA was never able to do, like build a reusable rocket and land it vertically. Clearly they are more capable than NASA in some ways. Personally, I think SpaceX will be able to do everything they say they will do, up to and including putting people on Mars. They've come this far, why wouldn't they go all the way?