> Slowing down innovation - most "exiting" tech is not a innovation. It's just rehashing long known and previously failed concepts in new clothes. And sure due

> Slowing down innovation - most "exiting" tech is not a innovation. It's just rehashing long known and previously failed concepts in new clothes. And sure due to improved UX, computation capabilities and/or better engineering it now might succeed or well just fail again. - most companies purpose is to create revenue (hopefully by creating a good product). So there isn't any interest to drive innovation if everything can be done completely fine with existing tech. - Just using new tech doesn't necessary drive innovation, only by giving useful feedback can it drive innovation. Something which in my experience is often not done, especially in smaller startups. - If exiting tech enables you to do thinks you couldn't do before or to do thinks much more efficient (mainly productivity wise) then sure go ahead and use it but in my experience for a lot of companies opting to use exiting tech it's not the case at all. - Not all exiting tech fits all company sizes, there is quite a lot of exiting tech which is generally good but at some point as a massive major overhead. Which any massive company can handle but which makes it a horrible choice for smaller companies. - Lastly some exiting tech is not just not innovation it's more like de-inovation and the only good think it has going for it is that it easy to get started with and "is fun"/"exiting" or similar. So I would only use exiting tech if it gives you a good benefit over other tech you can use instead. Be aware that better UX can totally be a benefit good enough to make it worth it. (With UX I mean the developer experience as the developer is the direct user of the tech.)