It depends on the situation. It&#x27;s bad to forego millions in recurring revenue, but it&#x27;s not bad to forego smaller gains if you have a vibrant business in other areas and if those smaller gains require that you go down a path that will ultimately make your product a loser in the marketplace.<p>This is why Apple shuns &quot;enterprise.&quot; They value user experience. Exposing UX to enterprise development priorities and methodologies is like exposing a kitten to mustard gas. Even a little bit does tremendous harm and it&#x27;s definitely cruel.<p>Last I checked Apple was among the most valuable companies in the world. Their stuff is also heavily used in enterprise in spite of their dismissal of it. Sometimes a good product can make inroads into enterprise if it&#x27;s good enough to overcome certain biases and entrenched pathologies. Some organizations have departments running their own &quot;guerrilla IT&quot; to support things that aren&#x27;t awful vs. the awful stuff shoved down their throats by corporate IT.<p>The root problem with enterprise is that products are often built to <i>artificial</i> specifications that someone made up, not to actual specifications learned through real use and feedback or that are shaped by underlying reality. This results in a lot of superfluous complexity that does not reflect the actual complexity of the problem domain. Another major problem is that purchasing tends to be based on feature check boxes instead of actual <i>evaluation of the product</i> by people who will <i>actually be using it</i>. You&#x27;d be surprised how often a large org will make a major purchase without even consulting with those who will actually be using the product. I&#x27;ve also seen cases where people go so far as to <i>pretend</i> to use the &quot;boat anchor&quot; product while actually doing things using a different system purchased or built with off-normal-channels funds.