Change for the sake of change is anti-engineering. It is anti-productive. Your changes must be improvements, and they must not cost more than they save or generate in a reasonable period of time.

Many organizations have a fully functional, well-debugged logging infrastructure. The basic design happened years ago, was implemented years ago, and was expected to be useful basically forever. Growth was planned for. Ongoing expenses expected to be small.

That's what happens when you build reliable systems on technologies that are as well understood as bricks and mortar. You get multiple independent implementations which are generally interoperable. You get robustness. And you get cost-efficiency, because any changes you decide to make can be incremental.

Where are the rsyslogd and syslog-ng competitors to systemd's journald? Where is the interoperability? Where is the smooth, useful upgrade mechanism?

Short term solutions are generally non-optimal in the long term. Using AWS, Google Compute and other instant-service cloud mechanisms trades money, security and control for speed of deployment. An efficient mature company may well wish to trade in the opposite direction: reducing operating costs by planning, understanding growth and making investments instead of paying rent.

Forcing a major incompatible change in basic infrastructure rather than offering it as an option to people who want to take advantage of it is an anti-pattern.