Unless there's an actual financial metric to hit: no. For most people; computers just suck now. I work in AAA video games, and I'm often told that consoles ho

Unless there's an actual financial metric to hit: no. For most people; computers just suck now. I work in AAA video games, and I'm often told that consoles hold back games. This is true in the most essential sense: for consoles we are forced by the first-parties to optimise our games so that they function on consoles at a reasonable framerate with not hitches. Those optimisations help PC players too; and they have more hardware headroom so they can crank things up even higher: without those constraints games would be much heavier and would require you to be on a faster moving hardware cycle. The same is true when I worked in ecommerce; there was a common verbiage which I don't remember verbatim but the spirit of it was "we lose 10% conversion every 100ms" - so we built our systems to do as much as possible within 100ms (including network RTT). If people actually have target hardware, and a metric that they're pushed towards, it can happen, people can learn how to navigate the abstractions or do better with the abstractions they have... but I think this wont happen, because in the examples above there was an actual cost to things. Conversion rate is money, not being permitted to launch on console is money. But you know what modern MBAs see as being money? Time to market & developer salaries. If every company has the same mentality: then it doesn't affect conversation in the same way. Those exogenous constraints simply don't exist in the majority of technology today. It's like a collective action problem. If there was going to be a collective action against this for financial reasons we would have seen it, shipping laptops with 16G of RAM instead of 4G (or 8G) has a really large headline cost in a company of a few thousand people; but those companies never pushed hard on Teams or Slack.