Because their product is actually two things: (1) a UI/app & (2) a highly curated data model.

My imagined future... they just stop building (1), or invest much less in it, and focus on (2).

If they can build a compelling data foundation (ingest / processing / storage / exposing) + do much less work to still cover 80% of UI functionality + offload the remaining 20% of work onto customers, that looks defensible financially and strategically.

There's a ton of feature requests that are driven by a few customers. Aka the "You're using it wrong. We don't care, we want it to do X" cases

There are very few VP+'s out there that would take on strategic data integrity risk in exchange for anything, and as new SaaS code quality likely goes down (lets be honest) the imprimatur of a "known name" on the data side becomes more important.

I'm always slightly amused when buzzwords are thrown around vaguely such as "network effect" and "lock in". Those are not entirely a matter of a better sales pitch or bandwagoning. They're about the actual product.

> they will lose to thousands of tiny teams that outship them and beat them on cost

They won't, but this is the actual reason. Nobody likes dealing with support or maintenance, and having to reach out to tiny teams is death by a million papercuts for the end user too. The established players such as Salesforce, ServiceNow, etc. have a mature product that justifies the 7-figure contract price, and there are always lower tiers of the same product for those who are that price sensitive.