Plus most of the time these are one time throwaway efforts done to quickly arrive at results and make decisions.
It will all begin to make sense when we think of Spreadsheet work as programming and not something separate from it.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jasonz/2010/08/03/introduci...
https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/
The thing is, with Excel the programming is gradual, you first just add some formulas, followed by conditional formatting, small macros, until eventually jumping into full VBA.
Alternatives, including Access, require good programming knowledge from day one.
I think lighswitch was stillborn when it wasn't distributed as part of office (irrespective of its merits, haven't tried it myself). Asking IT departments to deploy it was bound to fail. It needs to be available at the fingertips of excel users, like VBA is, always there, running with Excel, and you know it is available to everyone else so anything you do will run without having to install anything on their machine.
Excel needs to be viewed as a programming tool. And a good programming tool is something that gives as much control to the user.
There are many Excel tutorials online and on Youtube that try to teach you how you can do MVC with Excel. That is separate presentation from data, and its control.
So even if that market has fewer users then Excel itself, there an still be money to be made from people who could use a tool that is better behaved than a consumer spreadsheet but easier to use (for domain specialists) than a general programming environment.
But C aficionados insist they understand its behaviors well enough to not get bitten...
Excel is very likely a good choice for a lot of people doing complicated stuff with it -- in spite of its problems. It's just that some of those people might also want a niche product that replaces it for some particular purpose. Not an entirely new, general purpose tool.
The right comparison for this would be using some thing like awk/sed compared to using Perl.
The other alleged reason for Office beating our SmartSuite is the way new Windows or MS Dos releases always seemed to accidentally break Ami Pro or 1-2-3.
The other reason that Microsoft Office tools succeeded is that Microsoft was very good at all of the extra-technical stuff – business deals, marketing, software bundling, legal fights, etc., some of it quite underhanded/anticompetitive.
Lotus made Improv for NeXTSTEP originally, so there was a niche platform problem for the first 2 years, and after it had been ported to Windows Improv was competing against Lotus’s own previous spreadsheet program 1-2-3, creating consumer confusion and confusion within other parts of the Lotus organization.
But the main reason is probably just inertia. Once people have learned one tool that seems to work well enough for their needs, getting them to adopt something else (especially if it isn’t conceptually identical) is twice as hard.