> but it's also a recipe for mediocrity This is framed as a downside, but to be mediocre it can't be so bad it doesn't work at all. Most software that is great

> but it's also a recipe for mediocrity This is framed as a downside, but to be mediocre it can't be so bad it doesn't work at all. Most software that is great from a technical standpoint is made by a relatively small team, which translates into a relatively large risk for the business since it compresses all the volatility into retaining that team or not. With average tenure in tech around two years, you can see how that is not an attractive proposition for most companies. If all the competition is also (at best) mediocre, you can simply try to compete on other (nontechnical) fields like marketing or customer support. There is a secondary level of incentives that is present in most larger companies: delivering a fantastic product will make the owners rich and the people involved will maybe get a raise. Delivering a spectacularly failed project ends your chances of career advancement. This really diminishes the appetite for taking technical risk amongst decision makers. Mediocre is often good enough.