Software is made for the clients based on their demands, not their needs.
As a rule of thumb, even the software users can't really tell what product they need as long as they don't see it. It is even worse when the product requirements are formulated by managers who often have only a very global idea of what a working process of those for whom they are managing looks like
Software choice or creation (if it is made in-house) is a matter of politics, not quality.
Unfortunately, people who have enough technical competences to build a reliable and high-quality software and are good at internal politics are quite rare. In the consumer software this doesn't matter, provided that your consumers choose you because of your product, not because of what you are. Due to the difference in the distribution channels, the corporate software is sold/build in an environment that requires a good hold of internal corporate politics and/or ability to rapidly build close contacts with the right people.
Low personal impact and outside management.
A problem with the entreprise software is that it is in general done when the command have been passed or when the funds have already been allotted and can be extended/increased. Unlike the consumer products start-up world, this is nowhere "be great or die" dilemma, that teams need to get through. Some people stick only to get a warm spot and salary, some are there only to find the reasons it will not work instead of going a step further and finding out how to make it work. Man-month is a myth, in reality adding some members to a team would slow it down or even bring it to a screeching halt. In reality a team of developer is more like a fleet: it's total speed is more or less equal to the speed of the slowest member, unless they're being hunted down by submarines. In the corporate software development it is pretty rare to get to the situation where EVERYONE is getting their careers, savings and lives ruined by a failure to develop a feature and starts acting as a team, leaving behind those who can't keep up and doing work that needs to be done, be it theirs or not. On the other hand this is specifically the prototype of a consumer product startup, especially on the early stages.
If it works, don't break it mentality.
Most of the enterprises has invested consequent amounts of time to choose an existing software, train their people to use and ensure everyone knows about bugs and quirks. Changing it is an unpredictable adventure, with lots of dangers, such as downtimes, bugs and potential data/consumer loss no one wants to go through. Especially if their current software isn't thoroughly unit-tested and many other child applications depend on specific legacy implementations. For this reason there is so much legacy COBOL software, even among the giants that rely on software to get their core business going. And there is no argument that the standards for a "marvelous" software from 30 years ago would get it to the "what is that" level by today's standards.
Those who build it don't use it.
Most of the consumer products are designed by those who would be using them daily in the years to come and believe their products will be so awesome everyone will be using it. Facebook was build by Zuckerberg the day he realized it was only chance to get a decent date; Larry Page and Serge Brin are most likely using almost all of the Google products on the daily basis, just as Linus Torvalds uses git and Jimmy Wales regularly browses and edits Wikipedia.
The processes that result in quality software are almost impossible to control or manage. There's an expectancy-variance tradeoff in creative work, including software. If you want greatness, you hire excellent people and give them full autonomy, with the understanding that you won't always get the features you want on the schedule you expect, but that everything that is actually important will be done by a very smart, competent person in time. (Think of it as akin to Eventual consistency. It's not always what you want, but if you can afford to wait, you get good results.) With this approach, you get excellent average-case performance (expectancy) but a lot of variability, especially in the short term. On the other hand, if you want reliable mediocrity, you hire a lower quality of engineer in larger numbers, and micromanage. Your expectancy drops, but you're minimizing variance. The first produces an R&D environment that produces great work in the long term, but has variable output and can be politically messy (people envy the engineers for having better jobs in their R&D environments, and eventually it becomes An Issue). The second is much more tenable in the typical corporate environment. You can define "deliverables" and know who to fire if the schedule slips.
Enterprise projects tend naturally toward Bigness, and Big Software is rarely of high quality. (See: Java Shop Politics). Competent software engineers like modularity, small programs, and simple interfaces. This is the essence of the Unix philosophy: large problems should be solved with systems and given the respect that systems require, and not with massive single programs with poorly specified and undocumented communication protocols. Good engineers make the software environment better by writing small programs-- executables, utilities, libraries-- and only create Big Things when absolutely necessary. However, this type of effort is hard to track, because one programmer might work on 20 different programs in a given year. Management has no idea what its best people are doing. Managerial dinosaurs feel more secure when the programmer:project relationship is reversed-- many-to-one instead of one-to-many-- because they can control the allocation of efforts when they get together and fight over "headcount". Unfortunately, Big Programs tend to collapse under the weight of their complexity, especially when they change hands.
Birdshit syndrome. This is related to #2. Imagine a square-mile canvas, laid down in a park, that you intend to paint on. Before you're done, it's overwhelmingly likely that it will be ruined by birdshit, on account of the massive size of the canvas. Enterprise software projects need to constantly market themselves within the organization, and the increasing visibility (surface area) also drives up the risk of attracting nonsensical requirements (birdshit) from on high. If the project seems to be at risk of becoming actually important, everyone who has the power to slow the project down expects a hand-out. These requirements are akin to the never-ending and often escalating outflow of bribes and extortions that are required to do business in a politically-undeveloped country. If there are 18 people who have the power to stop the software project, then there are 18 directions from which nonsensical feature expectations and requirements can come, usually before the project is established or mature enough for its managers to say "No". After a few years, the conceptual integrity of the project's original design is gone.
Lack of career incentives. Big Software projects are good for the manager's career, because he can put on his CV that he managed a large team. Having 20 reports is more impressive than having 4, regardless of whether the team of 4 engineers accomplished more. These projects are bad for engineers' careers, because per-person productivity is so low, and because you don't really learn much if you're not in a leadership or architectural role on such an effort. On Big Software projects, 10 to 20 lines of code per day is about average, 80 percent of the work is maintenance even before the thing launches, and it's not uncommon to go two months without checking in a line of code. Worse yet, the engineers gain none of the visibility that they might have if they, for example, maintained or started an open source project. This is a good environment for maxed-out, bored engineers who want to milk the clock for 5 years (long enough to make a manager-level external promotion inevitable) and not get fired, but the better and more ambitious engineers tend to realize when a project won't do anything for their careers, and they start planning their exits.
"Uncanny Valley." Good software engineers either want to be directly in the line of business in high-impact roles (startup founder, trading algorithms, data scientist, CTO) or they want to be far away from it in a blissful R&D land with full autonomy over how they spend their time. The first provides the way to higher social status and credibility, better compensation, and most importantly, the chance to have an impact. Work in the direct line-of-business is often unpleasant-- even (if not especially) for high-status players-- but the upshot is knowing that your work actually matters. The second category of environment (R&D) gives the engineer the right to direct his efforts and optimize for learning, career growth, and long-term impact. Most IT organizations live in an uncanny valley between these two states, where the engineers' lives and quality-of-work is affected by the line of business, but in which they're second-string players, treated as cost centers rather than profit generators. Good engineers, if they're going to accept the compromises that come with being in the line of business, also want the "key player" status and credibility that can come with it. Most IT organizations have the compromise but not the status.
Talent bleed. This is related to #4 and #5. The best engineers don't want to work on projects that have lost their conceptual integrity, because projects that get to that point are bad for an engineer's career. About 50% of those over-ambitious enterprise projects fail completely, and the other 40% are held up by a "too big to fail" sunk-cost mentality, but become disparaged legacy systems that not only harm the reputations of those who worked on them, but also erode the reputation of IT in general, creating the impression that "our engineers can never do anything right". (Weirdly, people who manage bad projects always seem to be OK. They "took one for the team" in attempting them, even though they delegated all the crap work.) When good engineers end up on these projects, they either negotiate for more autonomy (which often cannot be afforded) or more compensation (which is hard to get when the manager already has to fight hard for headcount). The only way a typical enterprise effort can keep its most talented people is to give them "special projects" (see #5) outside of the line of business, but very few IT managers have the "headcount" to afford that. Occasionally, however, one of these "special projects" will turn out to be really cool and take on a life of its own. Then, it needs additional support in order to meet the standards imposed by the business. Then it has to fight for headcount... the Cycle begins anew.
A vicious cycle of low status leading to crappy results. Because most companies can't keep talent in their IT organizations, the result is that these highly ambitious Big Software projects tend overwhelmingly toward mediocrity. They build all-or-nothing systems that just barely work, but people don't have the right not to use them (as would occur on the market) because that would be politically messy. In the long term, this elephant graveyard of crappy Big Software brings down the status of IT, and reduces its autonomy within the organization even further.