Good points, and I mostly agree with you, especially with feedback loops!
Still, I never argued for waterfall. This is a false dichotomy which - again - comes from the agile BS crowd. The waterfall UML diagram upfront, model driven and other attempts of the 90s/early 20s were and are BS, which was obvious for most of us developers, even back then.
Very obviously requirements can change because of various reasons, things sometimes have to be tried out etc. I keep my point, that there has to exist requirements and a plan first, so one can actually find meaningful feedback loops, incorporate feedback meaningfully and understand what needs to be adapted/changed and what ripple effects some changes will have.
Call it an iterative process with a focus on understanding/learning. I refuse to call this in any way agile. :-P
Seems SAP’s investment in good arguments pays off.
OTOH Europe and Germany have obvious problems in the cloud sector: They cannot do it on their own and thus are depending on either the USA or other countries who have the know-how.
Not a situation you want to find yourself in, when IT is the backbone which keeps everything running.
Luckily German government’s investment in paper, floppy drives and fax machines makes it secure against attacks towards IT infrastructure… ;-)