One of the things I like to say in product meetings (product is the department of a software org that decides what is going to be built), is that no one ever asked for a three-headed hammer. Physical goods have a significant cost to the changing of their design, and because they're durable, people don't change unless there is a very compelling reason to do so.
Software, on the other hand, is easy to change, and significantly less durable. This lends itself to proliferation of features, and work environments dubbed "feature factories." There are numerous problems with this, but the easiest to understand is that any increase in the complexity of a product makes it less usable for your users.
In the physical world, if someone did make a three-headed hammer, people just wouldn't buy it, but in software you have a heavy-handed stickiness in the form of how users are represented. Because users are tied to platforms, they can't just leave when they start to suck.
Then when I got that, I started making the barebones services that would use that as a way of testing how far I could get building useful things. Turns out it's pretty far.