I don't think this is true at all. For several different reasons:
First, "the right approach" to building a software program is wildly unspecified: it could refer to the UI/UX aspects and/or the internal design, and these both have dramatic impacts on long term evolution.
Second: the "right approach" for "making music" in the early days covered things as distinct as MIDI sequencers, trackers and early ProTools. It was far from obvious whether all 3 would continue to exist or some hybrid would become dominant (that's actually what happened - early ProTools did not do MIDI; the eventually archetype for DAWs turned out to be a blend of ProTools and MIDI sequencers, and trackers were discarded).
Third: As I alluded to in my comment here about user groups, the right approach is going to differ for different workflows and use cases. FL Studio is not used by many audio mastering engineers; ProTools is not the choice of beat producers.
Fourth: the goalposts keep moving with increasing compute power. The current idea of infinitely elastic audio that has become common among the most popular DAWs would have been unachievable in the early 2000s. Network bandwidth may have a similar impact.
Fifth: the right approach (especially visible today) for some people who are generally "in DAW space" isn't a DAW at all, but hardware designs that bypass most of the functionality associated with traditional DAW design. The Elektron and similar h/w sequencers of the last 5 years are in some senses closer to plugins than they are to DAWs.
Sixth: plugins - the ones associated with compositional elements (you could say sequencers but it goes beyond that) - have long been where the innovation has been taking place. These have evolved quite differently and more diversely than the DAWs that host them. For many users, plugins are the real workhorses and the DAWs are just the scaffolding around that. It would be hard to take a look at compositional plugins and conclude that the "right approach" emerged early.
Not sure which point you think I'd disagree with here, I guess the core thing I didn't add is that yes, the design space changes over time as computers get more powerful. The original paradigms have proved to be remarkably durable though, hence the note in the piece about many pieces of software being the first ever in their category continue to be the market leader:
> I started thinking about this question, of whether software transitions ever really happen, when I noticed just how common it was for the most popular application in a category to still be the very first application that was ever released in that category, or, they became the market leader so long ago that they might as well have been. The Adobe Creative Cloud is a hotbed of the former: After Effects (1993, Mac), Illustrator (1987, Mac), Photoshop (1990, Mac), Premiere (1991, Mac), and Lightroom (2007, Mac/Windows) are all market leaders that were also first in their category. Microsoft Excel (1987, Mac) and Word (1983, Windows) are examples of the latter, applications that weren’t first but became market leaders so long ago they might as well be (PowerPoint [1987, Mac] is another example of the former).
In the DAW space, ProTools continuing-but-diminishing semi-dominance (at least at a professional level) is rooted in hardware rather than software. When they started, you could do not realtime audio on the CPU, so you got a DSP box with the software. The sort of hardware requirement was invaluable to Digidesign in establishing and locking in their early users, and it really didn't go away until sometimes in the mid-2000s when everybody started noticing that you really could do a remarkably large amount of processing on the CPU itself.
So in this world at least, the longevity of the first mover has more to do with actual and imagined barriers to entry rather than anything especially good about the software itself (and indeed, many of its users used to complain endlessly about the software).
First, "the right approach" to building a software program is wildly unspecified: it could refer to the UI/UX aspects and/or the internal design, and these both have dramatic impacts on long term evolution.
Second: the "right approach" for "making music" in the early days covered things as distinct as MIDI sequencers, trackers and early ProTools. It was far from obvious whether all 3 would continue to exist or some hybrid would become dominant (that's actually what happened - early ProTools did not do MIDI; the eventually archetype for DAWs turned out to be a blend of ProTools and MIDI sequencers, and trackers were discarded).
Third: As I alluded to in my comment here about user groups, the right approach is going to differ for different workflows and use cases. FL Studio is not used by many audio mastering engineers; ProTools is not the choice of beat producers.
Fourth: the goalposts keep moving with increasing compute power. The current idea of infinitely elastic audio that has become common among the most popular DAWs would have been unachievable in the early 2000s. Network bandwidth may have a similar impact.
Fifth: the right approach (especially visible today) for some people who are generally "in DAW space" isn't a DAW at all, but hardware designs that bypass most of the functionality associated with traditional DAW design. The Elektron and similar h/w sequencers of the last 5 years are in some senses closer to plugins than they are to DAWs.
Sixth: plugins - the ones associated with compositional elements (you could say sequencers but it goes beyond that) - have long been where the innovation has been taking place. These have evolved quite differently and more diversely than the DAWs that host them. For many users, plugins are the real workhorses and the DAWs are just the scaffolding around that. It would be hard to take a look at compositional plugins and conclude that the "right approach" emerged early.