I worked for a couple of banks. The older the bank is, the difficult it is to 'implement a lot more technologies'. They have the old COBOL codebase running on mainframes from 70's, then a lot of Java, COBRA interfaces that deal with this ancient, but reliable COBOL in the backend. Who is going to implement these technologies 'without being responsible for failures'? Modern management is all about taking credit for success, but not being responsible for failures. This sets up very bad incentives for any paradigmatic changes underneath.
That's why newer banks without legacy cruft, without a large customer base, can implement better stuff: for instance, Capital One entered retail banking in 2005, so they are better at some stuff.
Relatedly part of why it is interesting watching Goldman Sachs' even more recent entering into retail banking (Apple banking and Marcus), including their interesting partnership with Apple as something of their "technical R&D department".
Which is ironic because they are now taking large steps to wind down at least part of their Marcus business. Just today I think it was announced that they sold off $1B of loans on the Marcus books, and they are also looking to sell of Green Sky which was bought for their retail banking division just a few years ago.
Some additional layers to the irony, from my understanding, is that much of Marcus' debt came not-so-intentionally bundled from Marcus' purchase of some of (also aforementioned) Capital One's credit card business lines in an attempt to bootstrap more Marcus customers.
That's why newer banks without legacy cruft, without a large customer base, can implement better stuff: for instance, Capital One entered retail banking in 2005, so they are better at some stuff.