Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you talk about a few current "Cathedrals" and how they're different from "Bazaars", that might help the discussion too. The only example that jumps out at me is the original Unix, and I think you'll agree that comparing software from 30 years ago that does vastly less than ... pretty much anything out there these days is not an entirely fair, nor useful comparison.
The fact that you and others cannot even spot any more recent cathedrals is sort of my entire point here...
I will cite as evidence two of my favorite programs ever:
WriteNow (for Macintosh) an excellent early word-processor written entirely in assembler. Unequaled for many years for its combination of stability, raw performance, and ease of use, ultimately it simply could not add new features (let alone make the jump to PowerPC) and died on the vine.
HyperCard, which was perhaps one of the most dazzling, innovative, and influential products ever to ship, which pretty much stopped evolving once its original programmer lost interest.
Today we have the phenomenon of the incredible version one product, usually developed by one person, which never really makes it to 2.0. These seem very much like cathedrals.