Land and expand
Mitchell Hashimoto (founder of HashiCorp, creator of Vagrant and Ghostty) commenting on why software products often lose their core identity and grow irrelevant features:
The cost (cognitive, time, risk, money, etc.) of adopting a new thing is significantly higher than expanding an old thing.
You see this even without any commercial interests. For example, one I've spoken publicly on is how many programming languages became a least-common-denominator of everything features rather than hold strong to a core identity. And many/most of these have no commercial motive, its just laziness.
Commercial interests of course definitely push this though. At a certain points its all about horizontal expansion. Or, in more businessy terms: "land and expand." You have the P&P (pricing/packaging) for land deals that explicitly aim to get someone to use your software, usually lead by a flagship functionality that your product is truly probably best in class or nearly at.
Then once the deal is landed, you have a cadre of add-on functionality that you're probably just average at at best, but its easier for procurement (the department that handles software purchasing in a business) to upgrade an existing closed deal than to engage in a new one. So you can sell mediocre stuff.
I recently heard a different term for the "land and expand" idea in The Positioning Manual for Indie Consultants: "creating a beachhead". I find it interesting (and off-putting) that much of business vocabulary borrows from military operations. But that's a post for another day.
The "land and expand" strategy doesn't always result in bad products. But when it's done badly, you end up with Zoom Mail, Microsoft Teams, and JIRA.