Why does Lego have rules?

[Xfing]

Sorry for necroing but yeah, I've noticed that many competitor brands, even (or maybe particularly) respected and legitimate ones such as Cobi, go all in on stud reversal techniques and make them absolutely integral, nay, central to their designs. Cobi has plates with studs on both sides, even single studs that you can insert into the bottoms of plates to turn them into two-sided plates, allowing for reversal with literally zero extra thickness. They've even got 1x2 blocks that are hollow on both ends, allowing for the opposite. LEGO in recent sets they've been releasing has been using stud reversal occasionally, but the designers are forced into using parts that only accidentally have this function, because the company still refuses to make proper, dedicated parts for this purpose. I can understand their fears, since Cobi's stud reversal options are so extensive and versatile that the whole idea of top and bottom kinda loses meaning, and I understand that LEGO wants to preserve the "system" as going from the bottom up. Still, many MOCers who are concerned with staying loyal to LEGO are literally clamoring for stud reversal options. I think even just having those small tubes that serve as studs that Cobi has would already be enough - maybe coming with some sort of stopper so they can't be inserted deeper than 1/3rd a stud. Think part 85861, but with a stud instead of a stud socked on the other side of the outer ring.  

As for the issue of the profitability of introducing new moulds, it's been discussed above - but what I think can be added is that people probably started believing this myth after the 2003 restructuring of the band's philosophy. LEGO was making too many part types, many of which were extremely situational and single-use. An example of this could be a much beloved part by me (largely due to nostalgia): 6042. It looks really cool, but there really aren't many ways to use this part that would look aesthetically pleasing and be well-integrated into your creation. So the issue at that time probably wasn't getting or maintaining the moulds, but the fact of how many of them LEGO was forced to have for how few pieces they actually produced - that takes factory space which could be used for moulds for manufacturing more versatile and reusable parts. Meaning that the overall output of the company was smaller than it could have been, which is one reason I can think of why it was bad for business. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they wouldn't have abandoned all those overspecialized parts in favor of more versatile and reusable ones if it werent' some sort of problem.