Gitlab doesn't spout that rhetoric, and neither am I. What I intended was a little more nuanced, I will restate, this time (hopefully) more clearly:

Bad UI on your git hosting tool is very likely not what's holding back your org from delivering faster. It's more likely things like not automating your builds/pipelines/deployment.

Maybe you're at a company that's already doing this properly, you've got Github/Bitbucket Server/whatever set up, with Jenkins Integration, Spinnaker, Quay.io, and you're humming along. While I could make a case for why Gitlab might still benefit you in that environment, it's more likely that at that point, you don't even need it. For every org that is NOT there yet, I think Gitlab offers a benefit -- not thinking about how to get all those other things working.

Maybe where I am on this trade-off is just not the right side, but I see it like this: I prefer a tool that hosts code, automatically tests and deploys a testing instance of the application to host my code than a tool that hosts code but requires more setup to offer that kind of value, even if that second tool has better UI and is seconds or even minutes faster.

The best GUI is the one I don't even have to use -- and I think Gitlab is doing it's best to head towards that, by automate more of the development process for me -- I don't see Github doing this (though they're obviously not against it, they just don't seem to be innovating in this area)