Yup. The problem is trying to explain to a client: "Ok, so we've got the 4 best back-end developers, 2 best UX/UI guys, and a scrummaster. Now they'll cost you $100k/month, and we think that'll create 3 apps for you, but ummmm we're not sure. But these guys are the best, so on average you'll get more production out of them if you don't do agile" My conclusion is that agile only works with talented people; most of the enterprise clients I've work with (non-SaaS stuff) don't care whether they are Linus Torvalds or Joe Shmoe, they just want to spend their budget and get their "app" within the budget.
I think if it's a client situation there are ways to use Agile approaches and still give them fixed bids. The initial setup is wasteful, but from what I've seen once you deliver regularly you build trust, and they learn that they can control risk in other ways.
As to talent, I have the reverse view: by putting people in boxes, waterfall-ish processes train people to look untalented. I think perfectly ordinary people can do Agile processes as long as there's good mentoring and institutional support while they learn to step outside their boxes and make shit happen. After that, nobody wants to go back to being a doll in somebody's Manager Barbie Dream Office playtime.
