On promises made by marketing

In a large software organization, like in all large and complicated mechanism, friction always occurs at the interfaces.To overcome it, multiple communication lines are often erect between different functions. Take the army for example - while there's communication up-top, between the generals, often there is a lot of direct communication in the middle ranks and even more in the lower ranks. Doing otherwise would cause havoc on the battlefield - the air-force might bomb a location, but the message from the ground forces scout (that the target is long gone) is still en-route through the "official" channels.
In a software organization however, there's very little communication between the R&D department and the marketing department at the low ranks. Only the top managers - product level and upwards usually - meet with the people that actually meet the customers. This is usually excused by the need to "free the low-ranking R&D people (read-  the developers) from business concerns".
However, this lack of communication causes strange scenarios, where the marketing people don't really know what the product can and can't do and, even worse, don't know the future directions that can be traversed. Sometime only a tiny change in the code is required to enable a huge benefit (and a large increase in sales) for the customers. However, this request for change never comes to R&D because it's filtered by the marketing devision.
The same issue, only in reverse, occurs in the R&D department. Sometime we, developers, labor for days and months to enable a complex feature - that ultimately is used only by a small fraction the customers. Even more often, we over-develop - create a feature too wide in scope and too sophisticated - when the customer really just wants the simple thing done (usually over and over - and could we please provide some automation for that?).
Probably the worst sin of the marketing devision is committing to something that can't be delivered - or can be, but with great costs (development, architectural or performance). This is not done out of spite, though the complete effect does sometimes seem like the something done by an evil gremlin. The marketing devision truly wants to make the customers happy - but they lack the specialized knowledge the R&D personnel have - how exactly the product works. The worst sin R&D can make is barring (or even removing) features without really understanding the impact on the customer base. Again - not out of spite, but simply because no one has any idea.

The emerging pattern is of two disparate organizations - one dedicated for the "beauty and pureness of code", the other for "placating the customers" - while none is really dedicated for "create a product the customers want to use". This pattern especially visible the more "technological" the product is - the harder it is to actually understand the underlying logic.

On marketing your ideas - the developer's side of the story

When I was younger, about 13, I went to my dad's place of work (a software company - what else?) where I witnessed an argument between two developers over the way their product should move forward. After a while their manager, who was sitting and listening, made a decision and the argument was over. I didn't really understand what it was about. However, what really amazed me was that the decision was made at all - how could the manager know which way is better? Neither was tried and both required quite a lot of effort to even be tested. When I asked my dad about it, he said "that guy (that won) sold his idea better".
At that tender age this struck me as totally unfair. What do you mean "sold his idea better"?! They were both developers! What's selling your idea has to do with it? Either your idea is right or wrong. - and if it's wrong, no amount of talking would help you.
Moral of the story: You've got to be able to sell your ideas, otherwise no one will listen, no matter how smart they are.

When I was drafted into the army (mandatory service in Israel) at the age of 18, I thought it'd be like the books I've read. "The person in command would notice I'm doing good / the others are slacking off" (hey, I'm a born nerd). To my surprise, they didn't. Not only that - they didn't even care they didn't. Being shy, I didn't make a peep and, as you can guess, nothing good happened.
Moral of the story: You've got to be able to sell yourself, otherwise even if your actions are good, you won't be promoted while other people, who are better at self-marketing, would (not to mention there'd be no personal gain).

When I got into work I got into an argument with my team leader. I said "we should do A, which is technically complex but correct". My team leader went to another person in the team which said "we should do B - or nothing at all". Since I was the new guy, I was overruled. About a year later the old team leader was replaced with a new one. Since I was already a bit of a veteran (and my new team leader was much more technically oriented). my idea was heard and implemented.
Moral of the story: It's better to be born a year earlier :). Seriously though - it's better to be well connected to people who have the power to decide.

I'm seeing the same patterns today, at my work place. Developers and team leaders who have a loud voice, who can convince people they're right, who can "sell" their ideas (and who are not marked as "annoying" by the lower-mid management tier) - get heard. The others who can't, are ordered to follow the initiatives of the ones who do. More than once I witnessed a good idea get buried because the initiator didn't push hard enough or wasn't liked enough.
I'm not "dissing" my organization. My managers aren't stupid. You (probably) couldn't bluff them into agreeing to ludicrous ideas. They'd demand proof of concept, demos, numbers and figures. But - they're people, not gods. At the end of the day, they'd listen the most to whomever is talking the most. The people they like, those they trust, have a more time to sell their ideas.
All (or most) ideas brought up are smart. Most of them need doing. Almost all would make the product better. However, time in a release is limited - so all of the ideas are competing with each other. The person that can adapt his ideas to show how they match the overall plan for the product, the one who talks with passion and manages to infect his audience, the one who's adapt at gaining support - or - in short, the person that can "sell" better than his peers - is the one that'll end with the winning idea.
Not always. But often.
 I used to think "management" - now I think "managers". And they are just human. Like me.