Often these choices are 2 dimensional, but people don't see it because we can always agree that there's one quadrant that nobody wants, but usually there's another quadrant that some people really want, and others need but don't think they want. It gets ignored and everyone behaves as if X = Y when in fact it should be X <= Y

As a concrete example, I was struck by something in an interview where the consultant pointed out that easy to implement functionality gets copied by your competitors quickly. Differentiating features are ones that are very valuable but tricky to get right. But nobody wants to prioritize those and so (my words) whole industries are boring dystopias of cheap features with no kick. You should want to implement some features that are worth far more than the trouble of implementing them, regardless of how much trouble it is.

Similarly, getting a concise design may be one of the hardest things we can do. So we end up with naive or baroque most of the time. When someone stumbles onto something better a bunch of us copy them in the next generation of tools, but the inspiration/perspiration balance is very evident in the slow rate of change we see.