In truth it depends on the software. For web or phone or desktop apps which can be upgraded on the fly, short cycles are ok.

On the other hand, Boeing's crappy software practices resulting in the 737-MAX crashes are an area where short-cuts killed people.

So much this. Coding to marketing dictums on the cycle of days/weeks is completely NOTHING like engineering solutions where subtle design issues can make the difference between life and death (or IRL super good thing A and IRL super bad thing B).

And they just shipped garbage in longer cycles... as anyone that had to deal with such designed legacy apps can confirm.

> The market has pretty much determined that companies that over invest in formal software design activities lose out competitively in the long run

The same market that gave us AT&T, Comcast, DRMed IoT Juice presses, FTX, Enron, and so on? Not sure it’s wise to conclude that the market produces optimal solutions, or even incrementally better solutions than yesterday. Especially in domains with extremely long feedback cycles, like organizational trends.

I DO think there is some hocus pocus market zeitgeist that does something resembling gradient descent, but it’s acting over very long cycles and there’s a ton of room for cargo culting, grifting, and opportunistic grabs along the way. Heck, marketing is an entire field dedicated to affecting “rational actors” in the marketplace.

AT&T, Comcast are great examples of companies that have tried to expand into online video distribution, and completely lost out to companies with better software management practices. Both of these companies had a huge leg up 10 years ago, in terms of customer base and equipment (set top boxes already present in many US households). Neither of them is more than a small blip now on Netflix's radar now, who have been able to leapfrog into installing their software on smart TVs. The margins they have and their growth rates are much, much smaller than software centric competitors.