>I think that, within the context of that story, both directors are missing the deeper issue: A company's technology decisions aren't just about the final state

>I think that, within the context of that story, both directors are missing the deeper issue: A company's technology decisions aren't just about the final state, they're also about getting the project bootstrapped, and all the other technology decisions between that point and the final state. So it's not just that Facebook had already done it their way, it's that, along the way, they never had any realistic alternatives that led toward a mainframe solution. Absolutely agreed, "path dependency" is a big issue that comes up in a lot of different contexts both in the natural world and human endeavors. Just because from a high level or after the fact someone can identify a much more optimal final result doesn't mean that result was actually realistic to get to, or would be worth moving to from whatever local minima a project ended up in. I think path dependency plays a major part in what makes "disruption" possible, and in how businesses can sometimes be eaten from the bottom. A lot of companies end up in a state where they have a bunch of end point products but they haven't considered the paths necessary for users to reach that end point. Without a ramp their pipe can slowly empty.