The issue is that most programmers are busy working freelance or full time on jobs for institutional players. (Who're totalitarian oriented. Or in any case, the typical consumer, who's more or less broke, is not their actual customer ... Which does not bode well for the preferences of the typical consumer ...)
Why do developers favor working for institutional actors ... rather than doing their own thing? Poverty? That or because existing organization pay the most. Or because most developers are themselves totalitarian oriented. (They didn't think much about it, always did as they were told and things were fine, not good, but fine, and go along with the myth of central control as capable of solving any and all problems, apparently magically. Meanwhile developers write decentralized message passing to actually solve problems. They don't think much about it.)
Abolutely fewer specialists are freedom oriented. Individuals who are freedom oriented, for some reason, rarely go into science or high level specialization in technology. But this becomes troublesome. (When all technological centers are controlled by totalitarians.) David Landes made it clear ... Like gravity is the most significant force over long large space and time, being always positive, in the long run technology is real power ... Jerry Pournelle said it: Prefer to bother a tiger in its cave than a scholar among his books. Meanwhile those who have no power lose.
And then, the fewer developers who are not really in favor of centralized, totalitarian solutions don't organize. Making software that looks nice with tiny teams is very high risk. Result is failure. But they don't organize. So they lose.
There are dozens of groups of developers, hundreds, who do not assemble into teams of more than two or three. Almost nothing gets done. Whatever does get done is slow and cannot be rapidly maintained. And they expect to compete with A team (15 - 25), B team (15 - 25), C team (15 - 25) corporate structure in getting a mainstream product out the door ...