A/B tests suck because you are testing against two cases which are probably not the best case. If you take your learnings of the A/B test and iterate your design that's a viable strategy but proposing a shit design and insisting on deploying is wrong.

That's like saying that comparing a veggie burger to a normal burger sucks because neither are ice cream.

A/B tests, by definition, test between A and B. It is very likely that neither is the best option.

But how will you find the best option if you don't measure options against each other.

The problem is that in 90% of companies the decision is between A/B and not the iterations of them.

I'm going to assume the 90% number was simply hyperbole. Because it's trivially false in any number of ways;

Firstly many businesses have never heard of A/B testing, much less apply rigorous application of it to proposed changes.

Secondly many businesses have found their niche and don't change anything. There's a reason "that's not how we do it here" is a cliche.

Thirdly a whole slew of businesses are greater changing things all the time. My supermarket can't seem yo help themselves iterating on product placement in the store.

Blaming testing in general, or A/B testing specifically for some companies being unwilling to change, or iterate, seems to be missing the actual problem.

Frankly, with regard yo web sites and software I'd prefer a little -less- change. I just get used to something and whoops, there's a "redesign" so I can learn it all again.