It's not about reducing the costs per se

I often ask myself if a technology, beside lowering the costs for which lowering the costs is beneficial, is also lowering the costs for which lowering the costs is detrimental.

And my experience tells me that there are a lot of the latter ones that for lots of teams/orgs go under the radar, deferring addressing painful problems for a way longer time than they should.

In a bunch of cases, the high cost of change serves a purpose. It points to a problem, addressing which reduces the cost that was pointing at it.

So, the point is not reducing the cost per se. It’s fixing the problem that the high cost of change pointed at, which in turns dissolves the problem of the high cost.