Programmer Humor

A lot of the systems are quite stabilized. No need for a new OS, a new browser, a new language.

Even if the old stuff isn't perfectly optimal, having to setup a fully-new ecosystem is so incredibly costly that it's just not worth it.

That's why you see new developments (e.g. Typescript or Kotlin) piggyback on older ecosystems (e.g. JavaScript or Java compatibility).

Typescript could have been better if it was a completely fresh development without being encumbered by the madness that is JavaScript. But without JavaScript compatibility and thus acces to the JS ecosystem, nobody would have switched to TS.

All these systems heavily benefit from network effects, which makes it hard to impossible for completely new systems to emerge.

This is doubly strong for consumer-facing software. Linux only became a viable mainstream option due to Wine/Proton/... allowing users to easily run Windows programs. Without Windows compatibility, Linux would still be at <1% desktop market share.

It's also the same reason why everyone's making chromium-based browsers: Because that way they all work the same.

Disruptive change happens when you get a completely fresh use case. Microsoft completely destroyed the likes of Commodore and IBM when home computers became something that everyone had in their homes.

Smartphones becoming mainstream allowed Google and Apple, who were both completely new to the mobile OS business, to win against established mobile OS companies, because nothing was entrenched in the late 2000s mobile OS landscape.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Midjourney and so on are wiping the floor with established software powerhouses in the AI space.

But after the disruption follows stabilization. A product that has reached market saturation will only be replaced by incremental, compatible improvements.