That said, I do agree with GP that enterprise software is complex because it's designed to be adaptable to existing processes, whereas simpler software seeks to adapt the user to its prescribed process. And even without being an enterprise, I often find myself drawn to software that adapts to my needs and preferences rather than the other way around.
Just because the advent of mobile-focused product sensibility has seen a (regrettable, in my opinion) general drift toward significantly reduced feature sets in software does not mean that existing software with broad feature sets is now "enterprise."
Anecdotally, 20 years ago, scores of programs allowed the user to easily and broadly customize the colors of their user interface. That sort of flexibility was among the first features on the mobile simplification chopping block. As a result, most software created within the past few years has a single "true and good" color scheme dictated by the designer. Today we see that evolving slightly with the popularity of "dark" schemes, giving the user a choice between two, but only two, designer-crafted themes.
Since Word 1.0.
Why do you think it is called Microsoft Office? The 1989 edition of Microsoft Word cost $500, equivalent to over $1,000 today, for a single seat. That's not consumer software.
Microsoft Home didn't exist until 1993, a decade into Office's life, when it had achieved complete enterprise dominance -- thanks largely to its competitors' failure to release Windows version in a timely fashion in the late 1980s & early 1990s -- and Microsoft began pushing into consumer software.
Some friendly fyi of MS history...
Microsoft didn't use the "Office" branding until 1995. Before that, the computer industry called it "productivity software" instead of "enterprise software". In the 1990s, other software companies (like Borland and IBM) were bundling word processors + spreadsheets + presentations + databases into an "office suite" for a lower package price.
In the 1980s, Microsoft Word was competing with WordStar and WordPerfect and those were all consumer software for personal computers. Consumers could go into an office supply store and buy shrinkwrapped boxes of those software titles. They didn't need a purchase order from corporate accounting to buy an "enterprise volume license". And consumer magazines like PC Magazine and PC World would run articles comparing MS Word to WordPerfect, etc.
Yes, a Fortune 500 corporation today can buy a enterprise volume licenses of MS Office (or Office 365 cloud subscription) but MS Word's roots definitely included the consumer sector. I don't think the example of MS Word fits the author's idea of "enterprise" software.
The shift was in computers, from enterprise to consumer, and the software followed.
A Dell all-in-one (not especially budget), is £580 [2]. A bulk buy for enterprise would be cheaper. This is inclusive of the cost of MS Windows OS.
In the UK a computer that can run MS Office decently costs around the price of the software.
You can see why MS create a new version every few years; but why do offices keep buying it.
[1] - https://products.office.com/en-gb/buy/office [2] - https://deals.dell.com/en-uk/productdetail/2sue
Maybe there should be another term to help clarify for people who don't understand the difference, but the difference really should be obvious from context.
Excel is frequently used as a database, not because it makes a good database but because people don't understand how to use Access (or any other relational database) but Excel is easy enough that they can get something usable.
Excel clones simply don't cover the breadth of functionality provided by the OG, not to mention key UX features like countless hotkeys and menu accelerators
Every Excel user understands Google Sheets. They just don't like feeling like they're strapped to a wheelchair
Office Standard and Home & Business SKUs are without it, you need Office Professional Plus. Because it costs few hundred more for just Access and Skype, most workers will get the Standard one.
So, they're not client-server, but they do add a server into the mix.
The other common set of features is related to distribution and access. Encryption, workflow management, integration into server-hosted software, etc.
At a certain point, I think that enterprise software development starts to look like enterprise IT consulting. The line between then is pretty blurry, and I think that the really successful enterprise software shops are the ones that don't have an allergic reaction to doing consultant-y things as part of the product/services they offer.
Mentioning them as an example of "Enterprise Software" without specifically clarifying the Enterprise-features you're talking about is a mistake at best and disingenuous at worst.
I'd refine your examples somewhat. The author's idea of "enterprise software" would be more like SAP/Salesforce/JIRA. A client-server model type of software (data lives in big central corporate databases) instead of being documents-oriented (user data lives in files like .xlsx, .docx, .psd).
In contrast, the other desktop software of Photoshop/Word/Excel is often bought by consumers outside of enterprises because that's the software they prefer. (E.g. artists buy Photoshop instead of using GIMP.) And in the workplace, a lot of analysts like using MS Excel.