Because human beings are irrational and want "apps". I have numerous examples of native apps that are just wrappers around the web app performing extremely well (massively increasing conversion rates, revenue, etc) over the existing PWA.
Once, it was just failing to build simple flows for complex business logic getting added to existing complex business logic. It was more efficient for me to just spend a few hours and handcode it to get clean code.
Second time is partially my fault. I had a spec with about 10 stages. I let it run stage 1 and it got overzealous and finished the project. Reviewing, tweaking, and testing the massive change took me several days. I should have just wiped it and started over. It would have been much faster. I had maxed out my weekly usage already so I didn't want to redo it.
In the EU some companies simply cannot grow because of laws like that. They might want to grow, but can't because of laws that says if your company has more than X employees you suddenly have to deal with a bunch of extra bureaucracy and reporting requirements. These companies purposely stay small, and basically has stopped hiring, even if they could use more manpower.
This has its own issues. Big bad actors can now split their activities between more smaller companies to avoid some regulation. I've seen it happening.
Selective enforcement is just tyranny, but what I think they were getting at is a minimum size enshrined in law. I don't think it's a great idea, really highlights how arbitrary this all is and presents a risk of advantaging the worst actors more than real makers, but it's a valid way forward.
Laws like this are a good idea but its too burdensome for small companies so it cripples innovations and small businesses. Only applying it to larger companies let's it apply to only the companies who have the largest impact and also can afford compliance, while not stifling small businesses. Not perfect but I think it's a decent tradeoff.
there are many federal laws in the US (and im sure other countries) that only apply when your company reaches a certain size. This is the most obvious way to balance regulatory burden on new companies while still enforcing regulations on large companies that have enough resources to comply.
That would just add tons of extra paperwork and a much larger administrative system to vet all the sizes of companies. IRL they will probably not even be enforcing this widely (like GDPR) but the costs will still be imposed on any business wanting to sell in Europe.
Companies like to reduce risk and unknowns. Paying $500/mo for Git that is run by somebody else is predictable. Having your self hosted Git potentially go down and block releases, block hot fixes, block that big marketing launch, etc is not a risk you want looming over your head because it's not predictable.
Advancing through technical ranks does not qualify one for management. It qualifies them for more technical stuff.
Are you taking leadership responsibilities? Leading your team, mentoring others, representing your team in broader meetings with other teams, helping with planning, etc. Doing that stuff probably means you stop doing technical stuff.
There is also a matter of time. Some people don't get promoted until several years pass. If you look at a particular position or job listing, they say 3 years as a manager, 6 years doing Ruby. Find out the time requirements by reading job postings. This will tell you what is realistic in terms of time in a position. Compare 4 or 5 very similar listings time requirements. There is a little bit of flexibility with this, but not as much as you would think.
I definitely see the pricing model. I can afford $100, maybe $200, but not $3000.