One answer could actually be better than the other. However these answers and problems are just essays of qualitative experiences. People can debate with each o

One answer could actually be better than the other. However these answers and problems are just essays of qualitative experiences. People can debate with each other endlessly on these things but until these answers are formally defined so we can create logical theorems off of them, we will never know definitively which is better. As long as there's no catastrophic failure nature doesn't always necessarily choose the most fittest mutation. Just what works better than the competition. And there are multiple factors at play here. A company with better marketing could do better than a company with better technology, hence selection pressure on technology is negated. What ends up succeeding is the cohesive whole. Every metric of the company including the CEO, funding, marketing, luck and everything else being the best defines "fittest". This means if everything else is the best but your technology is the worst you still succeed. Hence bad technology continues to propagate and exist within the industry. It's sort of the same reason why cancer still exists. Why hasn't natural selection eliminated cancer?