The more successful something gets, the more bland it becomes.

The first step of creation only has to be viable for some set of users.

But now the next step to improve it has to be viable, but also not regress anything from the previous iterations.

If the next step regresses on any dimension, then some agent within the organization most responsible for that dimension will flag the issue and push back on the idea.

In the limit, this push back becomes an effective veto.

The person who stands to concretely lose something can make a more compelling case than the other employees who might have a diffuse, speculative benefit.

This is a fundamental asymmetry.

The more successful the thing, the longer it's been around, the more likely there will be someone within the organization will find a regression in any new idea.

The more successful the thing, the more constituents there will be, people who are brought on board to help build and maintain the thing.

Each agent is another person who could veto a change.

None of these constraints is a big deal: a single Lilliputian rope.

But in aggregate they can tie you down so you can't move, caught up in a Lilliputian web.

Someone watching you from a distance won't see any particular constraint holding you back.

Because there is no individual constraint.

The problem isn't any individual constraint.

The problem is the totality of the constraints, the web.

The observer will likely conclude "I guess they just got lazy…"