Absolutely, however a major problem occurs, and email is a great example of this. When there is a fundamental need to change the protocol for reasons of privacy, security, authentication, etc. It becomes almost impossible to do when it is as wide spread as email, or it takes a very very long time to spread enough.
When one person controls the whole system, it's easy to pivot rapidly. I guess that's another argument against having widely used protocols (even though I disagree with it.)
I think that's a great argument for keeping widely used protocols. I don't want any one person, or one entity, to rapidly pivot my critical infrastructure (whether it is "broken" or not). The slowness of change is a feature.
When one person controls the whole system, it's easy to pivot rapidly. I guess that's another argument against having widely used protocols (even though I disagree with it.)